|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair Dwayne 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; Vice Chair Steve Gjerdingen; and Members
Brian Cihacek, Joan Felice, and Duane Seigler
Members
Excused: Members Joe Wozniak and Sarah Brodt Lenz
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz and City Engineer
Marc Culver
2.
Public Comments
None.
Chair Stenlund expressed his
personal appreciation to outgoing PWETC members Felice and Gjerdingen for
their service to the PWETC, which will end in April of this year.
3.
Approval of November 25, 2014 Meeting Minutes
Cihacek/Felice
Member Cihacek moved, Member
Felice seconded, approval of the November 25, 2014, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
Page 4, line 151 (Stenlund)
·
Add “electric” in front of meter
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Culver each
briefly reviewed project updates and maintenance activities listed in the
staff report and attachments dated January 27, 2015.
Discussion included clarification
of tax increment financing (TIF) types of uses depending on the District with
its defined area in accordance with applicable maps, and legislation and
terms when implemented; recent award of Metropolitan Council funds, including
for the Sherman apartment project at the intersection of Fairview Avenue and
Terrace Drive in Roseville, and concerns in that immediate neighborhood
regarding the project as proposed and neighborhood informational meetings
held to-date; other confirmed development or redevelopment projects slated
for the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and infrastructure specifics, including
the extension of Twin Lakes Parkway; and local and regional traffic and
transportation assessments for infrastructure needs.
Further discussion included Chair
Stenlund’s request for additional information on the expiration date of each
existing TIF District in Roseville; and how TIF District fund balances are
determined based on contributions from taxes generated.
Specific to the St. Croix and
Wagner Lift Stations, at the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Culver explained
the proposed work for each station, their size and one a stormwater and the
other a sanitary lift station, all pending completion of the consultant study
recently authorized by the City Council; and no significant amount of land
being disturbed for work required at either location.
Additional discussion included
the maps included as attachments to the staff report, and identification of
keys used on the map.
5.
Sanitary Sewer Ordinance Update
The City’s Civil Engineer
Kristine Giga was present to participate in this portion of the agenda.
Staff provided a presentation on
inflow and infiltration (I/I) reduction and elimination efforts as a priority
of the City, and authorization by the City Council for Ferguson Waterworks,
as part of their replacement of water meters to complete the automated meter
reading program, with an alternate bid component incorporating sump pump
connection inspections. Staff noted that the data collected would be used to
determine how much of a percentage of the overall I/I was due to illegal sump
pump connections.
As part of that process, staff
noted the need for an update of the City’s current sanitary sewer ordinance
(Attachment A), with a redlined copy indicating proposed revisions provided
via bench handout, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Mr.
Culver reviewed I/I issues consisting of an excess flow of clear water being
routed into the City’s sanitary sewer system and therefore needing
unnecessary treatment, costing significant money in excess fees by the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) for that additional volume
all being routed into the Pigs Eye Treatment Plant.
Staff noted two kinds of inflow:
that from illegal connections (e.g. sump pumps, downspouts, foundation
drains) being channeled directly into sanitary sewer pipes; and inflow from
groundwater seeping into sewer pipes due to cracks or leaky joints. Staff
advised that this becomes a problem as the excess clear water uses sanitary
sewer capacity needed for the treatment of the city’s wastewater, often
resulting in more back-ups and increased costs for treating that clear
water. Staff further noted that the MCES required communities with excess
I/I to invest in local reduction remedies, including disconnecting sump pumps
and foundation drains from the sanitary sewer system, and repairing leaky
sanitary sewer pipes. Staff advised that the City of Roseville was one of 74
cities identified and required to pay an annual surcharge for that excess
I/I. For the City as a whole, staff reviewed what was being done to reduce
I/I and this additional cost to City taxpayers and utility users through
sanitary sewer lining, manhole inspections, and sump pump inspections.
With the current Sewer Use and
Regulations Ordinance (Chapter 802) originally adopted in 1969, with only
minor revisions since then, staff noted the need for a general update of the
entire chapter, as well as incorporating the sump pump inspection portion
(Section 802.06.h) specific to construction requirements; and additional
language in Section 802.08 prohibiting certain discharges.
Chair Stenlund addressed the lack
of specifics regarding pollution prevention requirements omitted in Section
802.06 during the construction process, with staff advising that any and all
ground water management was part of the application, permitting, and review
process to ensure environmental structures during construction work.
As noted by Member Cihacek, staff
confirmed that other parts of City Code addressed that (e.g. permit
requirements for anything utility related) with erosion control addressed as
part of that construction and under separate sections of City Code.
Member Stenlund noted the need to
address how and where soils being excavated are stored and managed (e.g. no
“garbage” allowed in the hole, smells, and mottles of how to perform the
work).
Staff advised that the proposed
language revisions incorporated into the new draft for Chapter 802 had been
researched from the ordinance examples from the Village of St. Anthony and
the City of Golden Valley.
Various portions of the code were
reviewed with the Commission, with staff attempting to simplify language and
references for the general public to better understand (e.g. Section 802.08)
and other agency requirements as well.
Section 802.08
Member Cihacek pointed out
apparent language missing (e.g. “this”) in reference to prohibited discharges
including but not limited to…
Section 802.11
Staff reviewed staff options for
entry upon private property, and alternate language proposed for a licensed
plumber to provide an acceptable certification of an inspection to meet I/I
requirements as an option beyond staff performing inspections if so desired
by the property owner.
802.12
Specific to rates and charges,
staff advised that the intent was to address these (e.g. surcharges for non-compliance)
as part of the annual review of City fees reviewed and adopted by the City
Council via resolution versus continually changing ordinances.
Discussion ensued regarding how
“certified” inspections would be handles and requirements for that certification
if staff was not welcomed by the property owner to perform this due diligence
and how inspections could be verified and legitimate.
Mr. Schwartz referenced a court
case in Little Canada in the recent past when a property owner refused the
City entrance into their home, resulting in a court finding that the City
could not demand access to perform sump pump inspections. However, Mr.
Schwartz noted that the court determined that a city did have the ability to
shut off water/sewer service to encourage property owners to allow access in
some situations, but not in a sump pump inspection situation, thereby leaving
a city with no recourse. Mr. Schwartz advised that this had prompted cities
to find alternative ways to have a sump pump inspection certified by a third
party.
Ms. Giga advised that, as part of
the water meter replacement program, the City anticipated 5,000 additional
homes available for sump pump inspections; with the certification process an
option available for those homes with new meters already installed.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Schwartz clarified that this was applicable for any home currently
without an automated meter; with 6,000 remaining to be done, 5,000 under the
contract approved with Ferguson Waterworks and the other 1,000 to be
completed by City staff. Mr. Schwartz advised that, for those homes with no
sump pump, the inspection sheet would indicate that no sump pump existed, but
with those homes constructed prior to foundation drains being required, there
was no mandate to do anything at this point, with data being gathered on
those sump pump connections to the sanitary sewer system.
Member Gjerdingen sought further
discussion ensued on the definition of a licensed plumber and who issued that
license (City of Roseville and/or State of MN), and asked that the revised
language clarify that definition.
Mr. Culver noted the need to have
some level of control in who signs off on that inspection, that it be someone
licensed and qualified versus a relative or other party not having that
expertise. Mr. Culver advised that staff was aware of some homes having sump
pump connections since significant discharge was evidenced coming through
during annual televising of the system, noting that those areas had already
been documented. Mr. Culver advised that, to-date, 3,000 automated meters
had already been installed without the data collected on sump pump
installations, and some of the proposed ordinance language was attempting to
determine those connections through following-up, which would be addressed by
the option to use of certified plumbers in performing those inspections. Mr.
Culver advised that licensing plumbers was more of a building code functions
with contractors required to pull certain permits and registering as a way to
verify licensure and protect residents in hiring work done.
Members Seigler and Cihacek
questioned the mandate of the MCES, and whether it could be handled at the
point of sale for homes rather than at this time or if inspections already
occurred on a periodic basis and if so, what triggered inspections.
Mr. Schwartz responded that other
communities have used a variety of ways to address this MCES mandate, such as
using point of sale programs or others inspecting the entire community. Mr.
Schwartz advised that this inspection program as part of the Ferguson
Waterworks contract would provide data on 6,000 out of 9,000 single-family
homes in Roseville, allowing the City to use that data to develop a
mitigation program. Specific to re-inspections, Mr. Schwartz noted that
staff may support point of sale inspections after the magnitude of illegal
sump pump connections had been determined. However, Mr. Schwartz advised
that one of the main issues is the significant amount of money, in the
hundreds of thousands of dollars, the City of Roseville currently paid for
sewer treatment costs for metered flow, including I/I, and rates paid by
utility users for that extra and unnecessary treatment. Mr. Schwartz noted
that, since the City Council had already approved the Ferguson contract at
their meeting last night, staff was not seeking PWETC debate on the potential
inspections, which had already been discussed over the years, since it was
deemed an important issue to the City Council.
Member Felice noted that, since
staff was observing additional flow during televising, it seems a good idea
to have further inspections.
Member Cihacek opined that he
found the proposed ordinance revisions fine, but questioned long-term
impacts, and suggested that as staff moved forward from initial inspections,
they consider future impacts and schedule future discussion of those
potential impacts moving forward.
Ms. Giga noted that many cities,
as part of their annual pavement management program (PMP), have televised
sewer inspections as part of their process to determine if a significant
amount of clear water is coming into the system, and at that point send
written notice to property owners in that area that inspections would be
performed.
In Section 802.11, Ms. Giga noted
additional language, modeled from ordinance in three other communities (St.
Anthony, Arden Hills and Golden Valley), with language suggested not as
stringent or aggressive as those communities, nor with the stiff fine for
those found not in compliance. Ms. Giga advised that the Arden Hills model
was found to be more general and less detailed, especially the portion
addressing surcharges for those found not in compliance at the determination
of the City Council, with that fee included in the annual fee schedule and
periodically updated to avoid seeming arbitrary or capricious.
Chair Stenlund concurred with the
language; but opined it was unfair for the City Council to penalize property
owners, preferring to set a fee to avoid being arbitrary and capricious.
Ms. Giga referenced language of
the St. Anthony model (Section G) regarding the City not issuing permits for
any property found not in compliance and required inspections at the time any
other permits are being pulled, noting that this language could be
incorporated for future inspections. Regarding rates and charges, Ms. Giga
provided a table showing other city fees for surcharges and non-compliance
continuing after re-inspection, with that research based on a survey of the
Cities of Eden Prairie, Fridley, Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Minnetonka,
Mounds View, New Hope, Plymouth, Shoreview, St. Anthony and West St. Paul.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Mr. Culver noted the intent of a community was to provide the appropriate fee
for non-compliance that would provide sufficient financial incentive to
become compliant in a timely manner. Mr. Culver estimated the cost for sump
pump connections could vary from several hundred to several thousand dollars
depending on the amount of piping required to reroute discharges to the
exterior of a home.
Member Seigler expressed concern
that elderly residents may not have money to pay the surcharge, nor to pay
for work needing done to reroute connections.
Mr. Schwartz noted that concern
for future reference, while reiterating that the initial issue is gathering
data, with proposed ordinance language to address that attempt, with the
noncompliance penalty intended now for those not allowing staff access to
make the inspections. Once that data is compiled, Mr. Schwartz noted that
the next step in the future would address consequences after those initial
inspections.
Mr. Culver noted the anticipated
5,000 meter replacements to be done in one year, providing significant data
regarding how much of an issue sump pump noncompliance is to the overall I/I
issue, and will provide the magnitude of the problem and options to address
those illegal connections based on that data.
Mr. Schwartz noted that, once
that data is available, the City Council could then determine whether or not
to consider resources for residents, an incentive program, or other options.
Section 802.12
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Mr. Schwartz clarified that ordinance language regarding a grace period would
not be included until completion of the initial assessment. Mr. Schwartz
suggested proposed language be modified to address access issues at this
point versus noncompliance of the system.
Member Cihacek noted specific
language in Sections 11 and 12 that would clarify that.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the City would keep a record of what
was found as part of the data gathering efforts.
Discussion ensued regarding how
language defined penalties or fines; further modification of the ordinance
after initial data mining inspections; how to determine whether or not sump
pump connections were compliant in older homes or for those not having pulled
any permits; clarification by staff that the initial inspection was simply a
yes/no sump pump connection and how/where they’re discharged, with the draft
inspection checklist consisting of only 5-6 questions.
Further discussion included
defining foundation drains, their typical location and/or visibility; and
clarification and/or frequency of non-compliance fees for non-entry
inspections versus connections.
Mr. Culver clarified that the
City owned water meters and determined when and if they needed changed out,
usually with a target area and notification provided to homeowners during a
certain time period and appointments scheduled accordingly. Mr. Culver noted
that it was seldom a problem to schedule those appointments, with the City
being flexible in meeting the needs of the homeowner, including those
out-of-town during winter months. Mr. Culver opined that it would be only
when resolution seemed unavailable, that a surcharge would be applied, and
then only until final resolution was accomplished.
Member Cihacek asked that such
language be memorialized in the ordinance.
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Culver advised that the intent was for the City Council to have an annual
fee established versus fees on a case by case basis.
Consensus of the body was that
staff return with a revised draft ordinance based on tonight’s discussion.
6.
Pathway Maintenance Discussion (Parks staff)
Parks
and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke was welcomed and introduced by Public
Works Director Schwartz; and Mr. Brokke provided a bench handout, attached
hereto and made a part hereof, consisting of Policy #42 entitled,
“Snow Plowing-Pathway” dated October of 2014. As previously requested by
Member Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz provided a copy of the City’s Streets and
Parking Lot Snow and Ice Control Policy,” also attached hereto and made
a part hereof.
Staff’s
presentation included a map showing plow routes and location of city parking
lots and ice control routes, city and postal installation requirements for
mailboxes, snowplow visibility diagrams, roadway clearing diagram, and other
applicable information in snow removal efforts by staff, noting that snow
removal efforts were a joint responsibility of the Public Works and Parks
& Recreation Departments.
Mr.
Brokke noted that the city’s park trails and off-road paths consisted of 74
miles of pathways, with 53 of those miles plowed by staff and the remaining
21 miles plowed by commercial property owners, with the city’s focus on
residential and park areas. Mr. Brokke advised that pathway maintenance
included plowing, estimating that the Parks & Recreation Department was
responsible for 95% of that maintenance, in addition to joint efforts by the
departments in trimming of trees and vegetation, sweeping, repairs and/or
reconstruction. Mr. Brokke reviewed goals of these efforts, including
complete plowing within twenty-four hours to provide passable footing (not
bare pavement), and with few exceptions, and no use of salt and sand to avoid
adjacent turf damage. Mr. Brokke noted the winter season required continual
clean-up with freeze/thaw issues, as well as systematic sweeping and trimming
done seasonally as applicable or on an as-needed basis.
At
the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Brokke reviewed the types of equipment
used whether by a sidewalk machine (two currently available) with sweeper,
blower or blade attachment for narrower paths, with 8’ paths done by truck.
Mr. Brokke reviewed other challenges in keeping the pathway system accessible
and safe in all seasons. At the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Brokke also
addressed issues with sidewalk irregularities in some areas, rate of vegetative
grown, competing activities and limited staffing, and storm events. Other
variables addressed by Mr. Brokke included the amount/type and duration of
snow and weather conditions and temperature, equipment failure, and
obstructions on pathways.
At
the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Brokke estimated the life cycle for
pathway machines was ten years, with one currently due for replacement and
intended to be retained as a back-up since it had little if any trade-in
value due to its age and the considerable beating the machines took during
their life cycle.
At
the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Brokke reviewed efforts of the departments
in addressing pathway pavement irregularities (e.g. frost heaves, tree roots,
handicapped accessibility issues); and continual and/or periodic inspections
of the entire system for repairs before the winter season.
Mr.
Schwartz noted that the entire trail and pathway network was included in the
PMP so they were rated every 4-5 years and built into the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) based on their condition index.
Discussion
ensued regarding types or configurations of roads and plowing concerns (e.g.
roundabouts, cul-de-sacs, turn lanes at intersections); and prioritization
for plowing City streets and/or pathways as applicable with schools,
residential areas, and major thoroughfares to bus stops receiving some of the
higher priorities, some of which were noted on the plowing route maps
provided, with collector streets, obviously serving higher traffic volumes,
among the first to be plowed.
Member
Gjerdingen noted his prior request to staff to include the pathway and street
policies on the City’s website for public information; and suggested an
additional comment be included on the street policy, with his comments,
intended as a disclaimer or as a way to connect the pathway and street
plowing policies, provided as a bench handout, attached hereto and made
a part hereof. Member Gjerdingen commended staff for their response
with snow removal and the great job they did in accomplishing the task.
However, part of Member Gjerdingen’s concerns, in Section 407.03 of City
Code, were that commercial property owners needed to be reminded that they
needed to maintain their areas.
Chair
Stenlund noted the need to also consider MS4 issues to continually make the
public aware of why it was necessary to keep trails flush with and avoid new
vegetation growing higher than the pavement, affecting ice accumulation and
creating issues with materials not leaving debris for water or ice
collection. Chair Stenlund advised that this was his rationale in the
“pick-up” versus “flicking” systems of pathway maintenance; and asked that
when staff considered new equipment then look at grooming turf to continue
drainage to the gutter line versus creating an ice ridge where vegetation
could grow over time (e.g. along County Road C).
At
the request of Chair Stenlund, Mr. Brokke advised that those areas
inadvertently damaged during snow removal operations, were addressed by staff
as time allowed or by homeowners in some cases, or a combination of both
parties. Chair Stenlund suggested that issue could become a service project
for local Boy Scout troops, which could use compost available from the city
and provide benefit to the city overall. Chair Stenlund referenced a salt
tolerant seed mix developed by the U of MN for boulevard repair (MNST12) that
provided a better turf edge than sod that could convert some of those tougher
areas.
Regarding
ordinance language for commercial property owners, Member Gjerdingen opined
that current language for off-road, non-motorized pathway maintenance didn’t
seem strong enough, and not clearly stating the obligation of those property
owners to provide that maintenance. Therefore, Member Gjerdingen suggested
the language as noted on his bench handout, for Section 407.03 to address
those issues and provide notice to those property owners of their
responsibilities and liability.
Mr.
Brokke opined that he found most commercial property owners responsive to
their responsibility, but clarified that was a code enforcement issue if they
were not responsive, with a process in place to address those issues. Mr.
Brokke noted that problems were often the result of new owners or managers
not aware of the City’s requirements, but upon notice by code enforcement
staff, they usually comply.
Mr.
Schwartz noted the unusual and extended winter season in 2013/14 that may
have compounded issues as everyone tried to keep up with routine maintenance.
Member
Gjerdingen reiterated, duly noted by staff, that he would like clarification
of private versus public pathway responsibilities, and for pathways on public
or adjacent properties.
Chair
Stenlund thanked Mr. Brokke for his attendance and for clarifying things for
the PWETC.
7.
Solar Energy Discussion Update
Mr. Schwartz briefly reviewed
background information and subsequent action taken at last night’s City
Council meeting as detailed in the staff report dated January 27, 2015.
Mr. Culver summarized the City
Council’s action, as recommended by the PWETC at their November 2014 meeting;
authorizing application for two, Made in Minnesota grants, while continuing
to pursue a larger KW solar system on the City’s larger roofs.
Based on staff’s receipt of two
proposals as noted in the staff report, Mr. Culver noted authorization for a
Letter of Intent with TruNorth to develop specific terms and financing for
installation on the City Hall or Fire Station roof. Mr. Culver noted that
this would allow time for exploring options and more community discussion on
the potential for a 100Kw system on some of the larger available roofs for
community solar based on the interest of the community in pursuing that
option. Mr. Culver advised that part of that discussion would include clarification
on administration of such a program and potential energy savings available,
as staff continued consultation with various agencies and firms on pros and
cons, as well as case studies from prior installations in other communities
and areas.
Discussion ensued on the Letter
of Intent and potential contingencies in place if a tax equity partner was
not available; and staff’s update of the PWETC on proformas received most
recently on the ownership and financial breakdowns, and costs to the City
during the term, all of which would become part of any future agreement
approved by the City Council and City Attorney.
Further discussion included the
competition for these grants; guaranteed energy savings programs per future
contracts; whether or not upfront monies would be needed from the City for
installation/design; apparent minimal financial risk to the City; and panels
sized to allow moving the system from one half of the roof to another in case
of maintenance needs.
Mr. Schwartz noted that nothing
had been finalized on a community solar garden or expansion of the solar
energy program, with the City Council needing additional consideration of
such a program, and any approvals on future agendas.
Mr. Culver clarified that, in
previous City Council action, the City had entered into agreement with the
St. Paul Port Authority (SPPA) allowing private business or church could
apply for an SPPA loan to install a solar system, with the City acting as an
agent for that private entity should they default, with the City assessing
their property to collect any outstanding funds, essentially with the City
serving as an agent to the SPPA for that collection of those funds, all based
on a legal contract.
Mr. Schwartz clarified that the
reason for a third party was to access tax credits that are unavailable to
the City or SPPA; and would ultimately provide financial incentives of better
benefit to the City rather than the City using its reserve funds for upfront
costs.
8.
Sewer and Water Lateral Ownership
Mr.
Schwartz advised the PWETC that the City Council had requested their study of
the current policy for ownership responsibility of sewer and water service
laterals. Mr. Schwartz referenced the current code, Chapter 801.17
(Attachment A) provided for preliminary review by the PWETC as background
research prior to more detailed discussion planned at the February 2015 PWETC
meeting. Mr. Schwartz advised that staff would provide additional
information for that meeting.
Mr.
Culver referenced related City Code, Chapter 802.07 as previously discussed
tonight for the water portion of the discussion, with Section 802.06.L
spelling out those specific maintenance areas.
Chair
Stenlund noted his personal interested initially in Section 801.08 specific
to excavation and construction requirements, especially in consideration of
MS4 drainage requirements, and tree resource damages and ownership of trees
in public rights-of-way or areas of open-cut excavation. Chair Stenlund
asked that staff provide information on that as part of upcoming discussions,
and whether those are addressed elsewhere in City Code, which was duly noted
by staff. Chair Stenlund noted the ongoing need to include that public
information for enforcement purposes.
Chair
Stenlund further noted references in current language specific to private use
of water tower connections; with Mr. Culver noting this section of code was
written in 1964, and while updated in 1995, was in need of updating beyond
the City Council charge to make recommendations on ownership of sewer and water
laterals.
9.
Victoria Street Reconstruction Plan Review
As
detailed in the staff report, Mr. Culver provided a review of the Victoria
Street Reconstruction plans, and public informational meetings held to-date.
As
part of his presentation, Mr. Culver reviewed parking, mailboxes, unique
project features, Minnesota State Aid (MSA) design requirements; storm sewer
drainage management; and maintaining the existing characteristics to the
extent possible.
Mr.
Culver further reviewed funding for the project including MSA funds, utility
funds, and some assessments (estimated at $150,000 of the total $1.3 million
project); sidewalk construction costs partially funded by Park Renewal
Project funds; park land; cemetery land not assessable per state law; and
work plan schedule during the 2015 construction season.
Mr.
Culver sought input at this time from the PWETC, especially related to
vertical and/or horizontal curves not meeting 40 mph design speeds and
potential changes in the roadway profile. Given issues that could
significantly impact existing driveways, receipt of an MSA variance to retain
the 20 mph speed at the curve at Reservoir Woods, and considering the all-way
stop at Roselawn Avenue, Mr. Culver asked the PWETC’s consideration in
declaring Victoria Street as a 30 mph urban section road to address geometric
design concerns, reducing current 40 mph posted speeds. Given that this is a
local street with significant residential footage, Mr. Culver noted that problems
were encountered managing speeds along some areas. In an effort to reduce
current predominant speeds of in excess of 40 mph, Mr. Culver noted the
intentional narrower lane reconstruction that would serve as a traffic
calming aspect. Mr. Culver noted that residents would prefer a posted speed
of 30 mph, and from a geometric perspective costs could be kept down, but
questioned if that may create more speed management issues, and sought PWETC
input.
Member
Cihacek spoke in support of 30 mph as recommended by staff, providing
sufficient educational efforts were involved to alert people.
Discussion
included education dictating speed management; design of bank elements on the
roadway to reduce speed; variety of areas of the roadway and higher traffic
volumes from Larpenteur Avenue up to County Road B, with the roadway north of
County Road B under Ramsey County jurisdiction and posted at 40 mph; and
additional costs to build up the roadway and driveways, with regrading front
yards if that was the recommended option.
Member
Gjerdingen spoke in support of a more usable and friendly roadway if posted
at 30 mph.
Chair
Stenlund supported a 30 mph speed from a safety point of view given the
number of residential properties along Victoria Street.
Member
Seigler spoke in support of a 30 mph.
Further
discussion ensued regarding observed traffic patterns along this corridor;
consultations with the Police Department to address current and future
complaints and enforcement issues with use of temporary speed boards as part
of the education process; and proposed striping for parking on the east side
restricted within a certain distance approaching stop signs and/or curves;
and more formal designation for on-street parking in other areas.
Member
Gjerdingen asked that staff work with MnDOT in addressing heights of bridge
railings to create more safety for pedestrians and/or bikers.
Mr.
Culver duly noted that request; however, qualified that MnDOT may not be
amenable to that request, given the multiple considerations under which the
project was developed.
Chair
Stenlund opined that this was one of the more complicated projects undertaken
by the City in some time; and clarified that references on page 17 and 19 of
the Feasibility Report needed correcting as to in which watershed district
the project was located. Chair Stenlund further opined that this should be a
good improvement for this roadway for livability of its residents as well as
reducing speeds.
Other
than for the assessment to benefitting properties, Mr. Culver opined that the
neighborhood seemed to be excited about the project.
10.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – February 24, 2015
·
Sewer
and Water Utility Lateral Ownership
·
Solar
Update
·
Soil
permitting process (Cihacek)
·
Examination
of penalties for no access to sump pumps (Cihacek)
·
Examination
of permeable pavement construction guidelines for parking as part of the PMP
(Cihacek)
·
Easements
on larger roadways and current setback requirements and how they were
determined if they were still needed, or could be relaxed to allow homeowners
flexibility options to build 2-3 stall garages if so desired (Seigler)
Mr. Schwartz noted that, in some
areas, there may be other jurisdictions also involved.
Member Seigler asked that the
PWETC be provided by staff with an overview of current rules and areas with
pressure (e.g. High Density Residential Districts) that may be applicable for
zero setbacks to provide flexibility for home improvements; also providing a
better understanding of how/when commercial properties are built up to the
curb
Mr. Culver noted that right-of-way
widths were one issue, but setback requirements from a right-of-way were more
a zoning issue, with the Community Development Department needing to address
that.
Mr. Seigler clarified that he was
seeking a better understanding of lots that may have some flexibility when an
easement may take up a significant portion of a lot, and a homeowner was
seeking to enlarge their home; and when and where easements were still
relevant or could be relaxed.
Chair
Stenlund asked that PWETC members consider participating in the City’s annual
Ethics training when it became available later this spring, and asked that
all members consider attending this very informative and important training.
For
the benefit of the listening audience, Chair Stenlund announced vacancies on
the PWETC for two members, and encouraged residents to apply and bring their
particular skill sets to the body.
11.
Adjourn
Member Felice moved, Member
Cihacek seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 9:06 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|