|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, February 24, 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, Joe Wozniak, Joan Felice, and Duane Seigler, Sarah Brodt Lenz
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz and City Engineer
Marc Culver
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of January 27, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Member Felice moved, Member
Cihacek seconded, approval of the January 27, 2014, meeting as amended.
Corrections:
·
Page 3, Line 117 (Stenlund)
Typographical
Error: change “models” to “mottled”
·
Page 5, Line 197 (Stenlund)
Typographical
Error: change “Ms.” To “Mr.”
·
Page 9, Line 378 (Gjerdingen)
Change to read: “… additional
comment be included on the [website for the] street
policy, with his…”
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Abstentions: 2 (Lenz and
Wozniak)
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 February 24, 2015, including a solar
update.
Discussion included potential
impacts of construction related to implementation of the Bus Rapid Transit
(BRT) with the only potential impact foreseen being for the installation of
fiber for immediate and future use; no further indication from Metro Transit
of their consideration of building the Roselawn Avenue station until
ridership warranted it; and status of final plans and bidding for the BRT,
still proposed for this spring and including two separate design packages for
station design.
Further discussion included the
status of design and specification work on the Lexington Avenue Bridge
project at Highway 36 with utility meetings held in the last week, and MnDOT
anticipating public open house meetings in the near future, possibly online
versus a physical location if indicated.
Mr. Culver provided an update on
the City Council’s action last night in approving plans and specifications
for the Victoria Street project and as discussed by the PWETC at their
meeting last month, approval of staff’s recommended 30 mph speed by declaring
the roadway an urban section, a special condition under state law based on
geometric conditions along that roadway. Mr. Culver advised that staff had
received good public input on the reduced speed and parking (favorable) and
efforts to address wetland mitigation with installation of the sidewalk and
stormwater treatments proposed as part of the project. Mr. Culver advised
that the next step would be to forward plans to MnDOT for their approval.
Discussion included the location
of the trail on the east side and connected into Reservoir Woods, with an 8’
bituminous pathway and 6’ concrete sidewalk planned as applicable along the
corridor; and the need to consider signage to alert bicyclers to reduce their
speed in those areas needing caution.
Staff was reminded by Member
Gjerdingen to follow-up with MnDOT on railing heights for safety considerations
as previously brought forward.
At the request of Chair Stenlund,
Mr. Schwartz reported that staff had not heard any reports of freeze-ups
to-date.
5.
Sanitary Sewer Ordinance Update
Mr. Schwartz presented the final
revised language incorporating discussion of the PWETC from their last
meeting and review by the City Attorney as detailed in the staff report dated
February 24, 2015. With recommendation by the PWETC, Mr. Schwartz advised
that staff intended to bring the document before the City Council at their
March 2, 2015 meeting; and sought any further comment of the PWETC based on
this latest iteration.
Section 802.11.D
At the request of Member Cihacek
related to costs, Mr. Schwartz advised that he would check to ensure this was
typical ordinance language to define review of fees on a periodic basis.
Member Wozniak asked if staff had
any concerns with sump pumps draining onto adjacent properties.
Mr. Culver responded that staff
had discussed this with the City Attorney several times, with their advice
being that this was a grey area with property rights, and more of a civil
issue between property owners if and when it occurred. Under current code
requirements, Mr. Culver advised that drainage and utility easements were
required for most properties, allowing the City some control over that
drainage. However, Mr. Culver noted his surprise in reviewing plots, the
number of Roseville properties never having been platted and under Metes and
Bounds legal descriptions, making it much more difficult for the City to
manage and govern those types of situations. Mr. Culver clarified that a
property owner had a right to drain water away from their home to a street or
stormwater system in some fashion; but it became an issue of neighbor rights
versus homeowners’ rights in some cases.
Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting
that a homeowner could not knowingly harm their neighbor.
Mr. Culver concurred; however, he
noted that if and when a neighboring property may be in the low spot, it
often was up to the courts to determine those issues.
Section 802.11.C
Member Gjerdingen noted that the
revised language now clarified sump pump inspections could be done by a State
licensed plumber, and questioned how the City documented that.
Staff responded that the register
of licensed plumbers allowed staff to ensure they were licensed and insured,
and other qualifications, to protect its citizens.
MOTION
Member Felice moved, Member
Gjerdingen seconded, recommending to the City Council revisions and updates
to Roseville City Code, Chapter 802, Sewer Use and Regulations (Attachment
A), as presented in the staff report dated February 24, 2015.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
6.
Sewer and Water Lateral Ownership
Mr. Schwartz provided an overview
of this topic that the City Council had requested the PWETC review and make
recommendations of any revisions regarding ownership of water/sewer laterals
and related liability.
Current Policy
·
Ownership lies with property owner from city main to building
·
City participates in sewer wye replacement as a part of the
private repair/replacement
·
Property owner hires contractor to repair or replace
·
Sewer connection at main (wye) is a frequent source of problem
Discussion included a definition
of the sanitary sewer connection (Type A) at the main with service connection
off to the side; the necessity of digging up the entire line for repairs;
with the City performing the street patch if on a city jurisdiction roadway,
whether asphalt or concrete, at cost to the homeowner and to City standards.
Mr. Culver noted this was the
reason staff strongly encouraged residents, during any construction and/or
mill and overlay work on their street if they’ve had any issues at all with
backups or drains indicated during televising of that line, that they hire
the City’s utility contractor at that time to replace their service line
while the street is dug up to avoid that additional cost to the homeowner and
the City ending up with a patch on a newly rehabilitated roadway.
At the request of Member Lenz,
Mr. Schwartz advised that in newer developed areas or with newer homes, it
was more likely that better and more technologically advanced materials had
been used for the laterals. However, in neighborhoods with varying ages of
homes, or those having sewer work done in the late 1950’s and 1960’s, those
lines were clay tile and at that time service laterals were stubbed out
beyond the existing roadway and in most cases of clay tile as well. Mr.
Schwartz advised that those materials are now creating the problem due to
root intrusion at the joints and subject to collapse if the line was not
embedded in sand properly.
In ownership considerations of
the laterals, Mr. Schwartz advised that some cities take responsibility to
the property line, and in Minnesota municipalities are protected to some
degree under the discretionary immunity statutes provided a municipality has
done due diligence in cleaning/inspecting lines, a city is then not liable
for damages from backups from its mainlines. If there is a history of
backups in a particular segment of the main and a municipality doesn’t take
steps to correct that issue by repairing or replacing it, a city would
eventually become liable for the back-up damages.
However, Mr. Schwartz noted that
it becomes more difficult maintain the sewer lateral from the main to the
property line; it could be a grey area when the backup occurred in the
service lateral; or how to determine where it occurred and how to prove that
location, and what level of maintenance had been provided on that segment of
the line. Mr. Schwartz noted that generally most of the older laterals in
Roseville were constructed without clean-outs at the property line, and
suggested that be a consideration in the PWETC’s analysis especially on the
sanitary sewer portion.
Specific to the water main
service connection in Roseville, Mr. Schwartz noted that the main is usually
10’ off the center line of the street, so properties on one side of the
street were responsible for 20’ of lateral to the property line and the homes
on the other side of the street may be responsible for 40’ of the lateral
within the street ROW. Mr. Schwartz noted that this created an inequity in
the distance and responsibility for total length of service among property
owners. Mr. Schwartz advised that typically the City shutoff or curb box is
at the property line, and some cities have taken on ownership of water
laterals up to that point, even those having policies similar to the current
policy in Roseville (e.g. a recent policy change in the City of Little
Canada). Mr. Schwartz noted that typically in terms of the water line, it is
either leaking which eventually surfaces or is working fine, and has a
clearly defined point for shutoff and determination of which side is the
responsibility of the property owner and which is the City’s responsibility,
which provides another consideration for the PWETC as part of their review.
Policy Change Considerations
·
Why change now
·
Location of ownership hand off
·
Long-term cost and risk implications
·
Residential vs. commercial differences
Having experienced such a leak,
and the number of workers and equipment required to make the repairs, Member
Felice stated that she would have been overwhelmed to pay for that if it
hadn’t been determined that due to the location it was the City’s
responsibility to repair it. If consideration is given to change ownership
to under the street, Member Felice opined that there would need to be some
way to fund that expense; and further opined that it was well worth the cost
of insurance to have it available should something like that happen. Member
Felice stated her willingness to pay taxes to have that ownership moved to
the City; with Mr. Schwartz advising that if that was the PWETC’s
recommendation and subsequent policy of the City Council, it would require
some type of rate increase for those home and/or business owners.
Cost Implications
·
9000 residential properties in Roseville
·
$2,500 - $6,000 repair/replacement cost per service lateral –
water and sewer separated
·
Potential $72 million cost with a 50 year liability (based on a
$4,000 average cost)
Discussion included past grants
for private sewer laterals funded with state bonding money awarded by the Met
Council and pending legislation to offer a similar process for cities to have
available yet again; cost economies available for large scale projects versus
on an individual basis; additional costs for circumstances occurring during
winter weather conditions; and the significant amount of money involved.
Member Cihacek suggested a consideration
needed to include the cost savings component for the City to have uniform
lines coming into a main and potential cost savings available in other areas;
and suggested a cost savings analysis could provide additional information
for this review.
Other Considerations
·
Discretionary immunity issues
·
Determining where problem is located on lateral
·
Lack of service lateral as built information (water tends to be
more uniform) – private developers and no city records available
·
Fairness to properties that have replaced this infrastructure
·
Other?
Discussion included replacement
scenarios and ability of a homeowner to pay costs upfront or over time as a
special assessment; and new connections added onto road assessment costs as
applicable.
However, Mr. Schwartz noted that
with completion of the first phase of the Pavement Management Plan (PMP) over
the last 20 years, future road reconstruction projects would be few and far
between, with that investment made and with few exceptions for a number of
years, most projects would be maintenance for mill and overlay versus
pavement replacement. Mr. Schwartz noted that there would be some water main
or sewer main replacement projects coming forward where a portion of pavement
would be lost to open service lines. However, Mr. Schwartz advised that
water service lines tended to have a longer life cycle than sanitary sewer
lines due to the original material specifications (e.g. clay lines).
Member Seigler asked if staff was
seeing an increase in failures due to the aging housing stock in Roseville.
Mr. Schwartz responded
affirmatively; however, conversely he noted the increasing technologies
available in lining sanitary sewer laterals, even though they were fairly
expensive at this point, which he estimated to be $7,000 to $8,000 per
individual line. Mr. Schwartz noted that, if there was sufficient interest
from 100% of the homeowners along a particular line, the entire segment’s
service laterals could be lined at the same time, thereby reducing the cost
to $2,000 to $3,000 each, again based on the economy of scale. Mr. Schwartz
noted the advantage for a homeowner to have their laterals lined while the
contractor is set up with their equipment, and noted a hole would need to be
dug nearer the house. In staff’s consultation with contractors doing this
work, Mr. Schwartz advised that they all agree that the only way to get the
cost down is to put together a larger scale project.
Member Lenz sought clarification
on the location of the sewer line, with Mr. Schwartz confirming that sanitary
sewer mains run down the center of the street, but the water mains are offset
left or right of that, with the property owner currently responsible for
however long that lateral line is from the main to the home depending on
which side of the street they live.
At the request of Member Lenz,
Mr. Schwartz confirmed that the City of Roseville’s Finance Department worked
with residents on timed payments or deferrals for hardship cases, with
interested charged for the duration of the deferment and until the home is
sold. Even though assistance programs are in place for residents in need,
Mr. Schwartz noted that the Finance Department advised few took advantage of
these options, since the interest rate typically charged is higher than the
private sector.
At the request of Member Felice,
Mr. Schwartz clarified how and when economies of scale could be applied for
replacing or lining laterals if it was part of an organized effort, but
questioned how to incent residents to get the necessary 100% participation.
Member Cihacek questioned if
homeowners wouldn’t be incentivized by the obvious cost differential.
Mr. Culver responded that if the
City had the responsibility for laterals within the street, they would
automatically make replacement or lining of those lines, as applicable, part
of their main line replacement or lining projects, since it would behoove the
City to be proactive in lining laterals up to property lines or replacing
them when trenches are already open, providing some economies of scale.
From his personal perspective,
Chair Stenlund opined that his rights and responsibilities should stop at his
property line, since he can’t shut off the water beyond that if he didn’t own
the pipe or line. An example would be if tree roots from a tree planted on
the boulevard, which would be in the City’s right-of-way, filled a line, he
couldn’t remove the tree. Based on that scenario, Chair Stenlund opined that
the City should own the lines and/or laterals up to the private property
line, and the property owner should own from the street to the home.
However, Chair Stenlund recognized that life isn’t fair, and if he chose to
do nothing at his property line, it became a quality control issue for the
City and the property owner’s neighbors. If a cleanout valve was in place at
the property line, and videotaping done from that point, Chair Stenlund
opined that it provided more uniformity for all parties.
Discussion ensued regarding
roadway conditions and replacement of the materials after a dig by to avoid
sink holes, with staff advising that the street department managed the
paving, or hired a qualified contractor to do so at City standards for
replacing it as it was before and for quality control.
Member Cihacek asked how much
costs for installation of cleanout valves would be and what the City’s
current policy was for making sure those were installed as part of any new
construction.
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff
would need to research that cost, as it was not current policy to require
them.
Mr. Culver noted that costs would
also vary depending on how deep the sanitary line was.
Member Cihacek opined that it
would be reasonable to review and consider exploring ownership up to the
mains and cost of valves to determine the cost per connection. Member
Cihacek advised that he would be interested in receiving a cost estimate to
that extent up to a hypothetical property line, and a uniform demarcation for
new construction ownership at the property line.
Chair Stenlund expressed his
preference for the City owning up to the property line, whether those
additional costs and maintenance fees were covered as additional utility fees
or through taxes.
Member Seigler suggested a cap
(e.g. $4,000) if a lateral has to be replaced, with the City typically
picking up the cost at that average cap, or a percentage of that, or if
needing to be replaced for dereliction of maintenance by a property owner,
they would be responsible for 100% of the cost. Under this scenario, Member
Seigler opined ownership would not change while not being overburdening for
homeowners.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz clarified the potential costs for laterals with new
construction projects: additional trenching under OSHA safety requirements,
testing of the main. Mr. Schwartz further clarified that, during a major
reconstruction project there may be various economies of scale, a contractor
typically installs services after the main is filled and pressure tested,
with the lateral trenches then dug and placed, noting that it wasn’t just a
simple one-time installation process for water lines. Mr. Schwartz noted
that sanitary sewer mains and laterals were not as complicated, and can
usually be done at the same time the main is installed even though laterals
are typically dug by contractors after the fact. It is less expensive to
perform this work at that point versus after the road is paved with curb
& gutter installed, and sod and trees planted.
At the request of Member
Gjerdingen, Mr. Schwartz estimated the cost for new construction of each of
those laterals would be $2,000 to $3,000.
Member Cihacek clarified that the
issue to be considered by the PWETC for recommendation was not so much new
construction, which would typically be under contractor liability; but the
concern is how to address the majority of older housing stock in Roseville
needing infrastructure replacement and not covered by insurance or other
means, and how to address that versus new construction. Member Cihacek
opined that the City needed to be proactive moving forward to allow it to
have better access and control of mains and laterals.
Mr. Schwartz advised that when
the City was heavily into the PMP in the 1980’s and 1990’s, a fair number of
residents took advantage of replacing their laterals based on the great bid
prices, with some of those homeowners paying as little as $600 each to
replace their laterals in the public rights-of-way.
Member Cihacek asked if property
owners had any opportunity to learn what condition their laterals were in and
how to access that information.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City maintained sewer/water cards from original construction of houses (e.g.
small drawings and sketchy information) and some of the original as builts
for mainlines has some minimal information on them. However, given the
variety of data sources and if and when they’re available, Mr. Schwartz noted
that a full database for each property did not exist, especially the older
properties having 4” cast iron or 6” clay or other type material pipes, those
that were the most problematic.
At the request of Member Cihacek,
Mr. Schwartz advised that staff continued to update their information as they
worked with homeowners who have replaced their infrastructure. However, Mr.
Schwartz noted that to get all the information in one place for easy access
from the field or at the office would prove to be a monumental task given
current staffing levels.
Member Cihacek suggested some
type of disclosure for those purchasing older homes in Roseville that might
provide an estimate of a potential future cost they should be prepared for
with those older pipes.
Mr. Culver noted that, during
more recent years when permitting was required for replacement of water
and/or sewer lines, if a homeowner or prospective homeowner contacted the
City’s Building Department to seek that information, they could access it and
advise them when it was last replaced.
Mr. Schwartz noted the water side
provided more of a location, with varying sizes and types of pipes.
Mr. Culver suggested staff
research the information with the Building Department to determine their data
retention timeframe for permits and other property information, and how or if
a homeowner could obtain that information from the past.
Mr. Schwartz advised that during
staff’s research of this issue, there were some cities that have a
requirement for televising sewer and/or water lines as a point-of-sale
requirement, with the City of Golden Valley having the strictest policy he’d
found among metropolitan communities. In that case, Mr. Schwartz advised
that the homeowner or seller actually had to prove the sanitary sewer service
was of sufficient material or condition for resale, or the seller had to
replace it before sale. Mr. Schwartz noted that this required the seller
paying for televising of the lines that would indicate any off-set joints or
root intrusion, and if so, also require replacement at that point and before
sale.
Member Cihacek asked staff to
provide more information on home ownership on older homes and those having
knowledge of the lines, and applicable cost estimates for those homes or
situations.
Chair Stenlund noted that staff’s
estimate already provided the total cost at approximately $72 million, so it
was really only determining who would cover the costs, property owners or the
City.
Member Cihacek opined, no matter
of the potential cost, it would be beneficial to alert homeowners of
potential future costs.
Member Felice noted that, in an
emergency situation with a sewer backup or water line freeze-up, you didn’t
have time to research the situation or a contractor, and only needed someone
to “save me now!” Member Felice opined that it would be good thing for the
City to have available a list for homeowners of qualified, licensed
contractors who could perform the work.
As one of the 120 homeowners in
Roseville required to run water during colder winter months due to an
incorrectly or too shallow water line installation, Member Wozniak opined
that it had always bothered him since he had not been aware of that situation
when purchasing the home from the previous homeowner. Member Wozniak opined
that he thought the City would have taken responsibility during construction
to make sure the water line was properly installed to avoid this, and as a
result he viewed the water line as something provided to the homeowner by the
City, and thought the City should take ownership all the way up to where it
enters his home. In response to Chair Stenlund’s request for clarification,
Member Wozniak stated that to him this meant at the water meter, or the shut-off
valve in his house. However, Member Wozniak recognized that as a property
owner he could also do something that could inadvertently damage the water
line in the area he’s suggesting be the City’s responsibility.
Mr. Schwartz concurred that he
could support the ownership to the property line for water lines scenario in
most cases, but in situations when a plumber was hired by the homeowner to
switch a home from a private well to City water, or in cases where a contractor
installed a line improperly, it would be difficult to justify accepting those
lines on an “as is” basis.
Member Wozniak noted that, in his
personal case, the main shut-off valve was actually located in his neighbor’s
property across the street at least that was where the contractor went to
thaw the water line during his first winter owning the home.
Mr. Culver asked for those
addresses to further investigate that situation.
Mr. Schwartz sought clarification
as to whether that was the first time the line froze shortly after a road
project was completed and the grade changed.
Member Wozniak responded
negatively, advising that they were already on the notification list for
potential freeze-ups.
Regarding lateral sewer lines, Member Wozniak agreed with Chair Stenlund’s
comments, opining that he had more influence in what went into the lateral
and therefore bore some responsibility for affecting its operation or
landscaping installed over the line.
Member Gjerdingen opined that he
was hesitant for the City to take on that total cost, noting that the money
had to come from somewhere; and questioned where that was and if it was
always allotted only to this purpose. In cases for high density housing
(HDR), Member Gjerdingen suggested a more efficient water main cost for
repair and/or maintenance was available to that property owner over time, but
would be unfairly hit with any property tax increase to cover these costs.
Member Gjerdingen opined that the same applied to some commercial properties.
Member Gjerdingen opined that, from his perspective, it made sense to own and
replace the infrastructure along county roads and collectors simply due to
the amount of disruption maintenance causes on these roads, but stated that
the same would not apply to small residential streets, which have less of a
consequence to traffic if a line breaks in the middle of winter. Member
Gjerdingen opined that during large reconstruction projects, it provided the
perfect time to replace lines. Member Gjerdingen stated that he could
consider the City taking ownership of the laterals on some roads, but was not
sure if he could support that city-wide.
Member Cihacek questioned if this
was going to be considered as an additional cost or fee applied to utility
bills to address future maintenance costs or would it be an additional
surcharge added to pay for this amortized cost over time.
Mr. Schwartz questioned if he was
suggesting it would be like a property owner having an insurance policy for
its own water and/or sewer lines.
Member Cihacek suggested instead
of adding it to taxes, it could be done property-wise and added to fees as
applicable.
Mr. Culver questioned if Member
Cihacek intended that as pre- or post- replacement.
Member Cihacek opined that it
could be either; stating that he’d be fine with an additional $5 fee to make
sure funds are available if and when needed, and if not used or the ownership
of a property changes, it could be refunded. Member Cihacek opined that this
way there would be a pot of money for repairs; but admitted he was not sure
if that would be viable depending on surcharge rules under which the
municipality and its utilities were governed.
Chair Stenlund suggested a fee
that went into a pool to take care of any situation in the City of Roseville.
Member Seigler stated that he had
no problem with an assessment for repair, but would like to see a cap,
especially if there were unique situations; with the City being responsible
for smaller liabilities and protecting some of the other unique situations.
Mr. Schwartz stated they had run
into unique situations in the past, especially with county and/or wider
roadways, when repair or replacement would become an undue burden for those
adjacent property owners.
Mr. Schwartz summarized his
understanding of tonight’s discussion for staff to provide additional information
as noted and hold more detailed discussions with the Finance Department.
Additional information needs for
future discussion included: point-of-sale options, financing and capping
costs and how to address various situations, at what point ownership began,
and how to examine and document clean-out valves as homes or new connections
are construction going forward (Cihacek); who was the responsible party in
situations of improper installation or past ownership and who becomes liable,
the current or former property owner (Stenlund); if, how, and to what extent
the City can require homeowners to maintain minimum insurance coverage to
address these situations (Cihacek); and if a property owner is liable to the
center of the street if something goes wrong while owning laterals but most
of the contractors are long gone, and who becomes liable when the property
owner didn’t own the land under the street, but did own the laterals, at
least under the current situation (Stenlund).
Recess
Chair Stenlund recessed the meeting at approximately 7:48
p.m. and reconvened at approximately 7:53 p.m.
7.
Right-of-Way (ROW) Width Discussion
As
previously requested by the PWEC, Mr. Culver presented information on
right-of-way easements and possible vacations of some for home expansions
that may be applicable for zero setback requirements (e.g. HDR’s).
Member
Seigler, who had originated this request, provided examples of some corner
lots without room for even a two-car garage under current setback
requirements; or some lots too small for sufficient green space or unable to
qualify for any expansion based on impervious surface requirements. As a
GreenStep City, Member Seigler questioned if the City was being consistent in
that designation while still requiring significant setbacks across-the-board;
while not allowing those wanting to expand to increase the value of their
homes based on those setback requirements.
Mr.
Culver noted that given the age of the community and much of its housing
stock, there were numerous unique circumstances. Mr. Culver opined that part
of the problem with easements was that since Roseville was developed without
the majority of the lots properly platted, with many lot splits over and
again, creating irregular properties over those years, it created many of the
problems, since right-of-way and/or utility easements were not always
provided. Mr. Culver noted that under current regulations, many of those lot
splits would not be allowed today that would serve to avoid the very issues
Mr. Seigler was identifying. Mr. Culver noted that this included the land
use code that a property could not have more than 30% impervious surface.
As
suggested by Member Seigler, Mr. Culver spoke in support of a case study for
his neighbor’s property, not only as an example, but to perhaps find
solutions or options for development versus the inability to develop in
certain cases.
Mr.
Culver displayed a map showing rights-of-ways from one area of Roseville and
actual variances of that width as an example of the variables.
In
addition, Mr. Schwartz advised that in some corridors the variable may not be
as large as indicated on this map, as the map didn’t always show actual
platted rights-of-way widths in some instances. As an example, Mr. Schwartz
noted that Roselawn Avenue, originally a Ramsey County Road, had an initial
standard of 66’, then another 10’ was added to each side; with some county
roadways actually at 86’, and others allowing for 49.5’ on each side of the
center (e.g. Lexington Avenue and Rice Street) after replatting.
At
the request of Member Felice, Mr. Culver clarified the difference in
rights-of-way and easements. Mr. Culver explained that a right-of-way was
typically platted and publically owned, either dedicated or purchased, with
private property extending up to that right-of-way. Mr. Culver advised that
an easement essentially provided the same rights, but it was a portion of
encumbered private property. Mr. Culver noted that generally setback rules
generally are measured off a property line, while a roadway easement may not
have as many limitations for the private property owners as a right-of-way.
Mr.
Schwartz noted that platted rights-of-way were generally used for a public
purpose (e.g. sidewalks), while easements typically had a specific use (e.g.
utility or roadway) depending on how they were written, and sometimes
prohibiting that area for another type of use. As an example, Mr. Schwartz
advised that, the City may have a sanitary sewer easement, but it could not
put in a water main in that area unless it acquired easement rights
specifically for that purpose.
Mr.
Culver advised that any newly platted property included a drainage easement
around the new property for drainage and utility purposes; however, a
sidewalk would require additional rights being granted.
Member
Cihacek asked if the property owner was responsible for rights-of-way and
easement maintenance.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that, legally, the City could not force a private property
owner to mow a city-owned right-of-way if it was actually owned by the City.
However, Mr. Schwarz noted that a property owner often did so to make their
property look good; even though in rare circumstances, property owners have
refused to do so, and the City did so. However, Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City did minimal mowing in those situations for the purpose of reducing the
height of the grass and/or weeds, and it would not be to standards for most
front yards in Roseville.
At
the request of Member Cihacek, Mr. Schwartz responded that code language
prohibited some and dictated what type of landscaping a property owner could
install, such as not reducing or eliminating sight lines, or hampering snow
plowing, etc. However, Rain gardens are frequently allowed, and the property
owner may even be eligible for cost participation if it helps to reduce
drainage and runoff on a roadway, with many such project costs reimbursed
under best management practices (BMP’s) with the Ramsey Conservation District
and area watershed districts.
Member
Cihacek questioned if that affected a lot’s permeability enough to allow
expansion of a home or garage or changing requirements.
Mr.
Culver advised that, if you go over the 30% impervious surface cap, you had
to mitigate that with extra BMP’s in some way, with a rain garden being one
of several options available, and the calculation based on the amount of
additional impervious surface being added and dictating the size of the BMP
required.
However,
Chair Stenlund noted that such a BMP could not be installed in a right-of-way
as it could not have dual uses in one area.
If
homeowners are expected to maintain rights-of-way, Member Cihacek questioned
if it wouldn’t be mutually beneficial to promote such uses.
Mr.
Culver noted that could be possible, but required an additional step, to
apply for an easement encroachment, but would require a case-by-case review
and be two separate processes and evaluated per case.
Member
Cihacek questioned if there was any historic variable driven by historic
uses.
Mr.
Culver responded that it would be very difficult to standardize that
information on a city-wide basis, due to the numerous variables for
rights-of-way and positions of roadways, location of water and sewer mains,
and location of private utilities. Mr. Culver opined that it would be an
enormous administrative task to accomplish that, as well as working through
Ramsey County to legally change those rights-of-way and identify where it
could happen.
Member
Cihacek questioned if the City could voluntarily cede part of its easement or
right-of-way back to a homeowner to create that consistency.
Mr.
Culver advised that there was such a mechanism in place, used sometimes,
called a vacation process, and included filing fees for applications, holding
a public hearing, investigating utilities and other issues that could be
impacted and on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Culver advised that it was easier
for the City to support a setback variance if that became a driving factor.
Mr.
Schwartz concurred, noting that it would also be cost prohibitive to do so.
Chair
Stenlund noted public rights-of-way could not generally be used for personal
gain (e.g. to meet a water quality issue).
Member
Seigler used the property at 1829 Roselawn Ave. on the displayed map and
variables along just that one block in setbacks, available property for
expansion; public rights-of-way; and other issues. Member Seigler opined
that he saw some setback requirements as excessive when there appeared to be
no consistency from one parcel to another, even on one block. When a lot was
small, Member Seigler opined that it became even more excessive when the
City’s easement or right-of-way was taking 20% to 25% of that lot. Member
Seigler noted that the city, county and/or state had 65 years since the
City’s inception to do something on that reserved property, and had not done
so to-date. Now, with changes to housing stock expectations and in order to
have a home resalable in today’s market that was viable (e.g. master suite
and minimum two-car garage), if there was room for an expansion on the lot to
accomplish a marketable home, the City should find a way to accommodate that
growth to get higher value homes.
Member
Seigler expressed concern that the City of Roseville could eventually end up
being a community of lower value homes or lower income housing, similar to
some neighboring communities, with those seeking higher valued homes moving
to other communities to find it. Member Seigler opined that there were some areas
with stable lots that could be addressed to meet those needs.
Chair
Stenlund noted that the Cities of Eagan and Edina had ripped out little homes
and built McMansions that were now creating problems from their size and
creating problems with solar shade.
Member
Seigler stated that he personally had no problem with the market value of
homes surrounding him increasing.
Chair
Stenlund just noted that there were other issues to consider, as well as
other options.
Member
Seigler opined that Roseville may be coming artificially undesirable due to
the large setbacks, reducing house values and any improvements that may
occur. Member Seigler advised that if some improvements were allowed it
would serve to improve the community’s overall value.
Member
Cihacek questioned if a parcel’s size when offered for sale provides its
platted lot size or included the right-of-way.
Mr.
Culver responded that advised that the lot size was bound by the square, not
the right-of-way; and for example, a 2/3 acre lot which was not that uncommon
as a standard lot size in Roseville while some were smaller. Mr. Culver
noted that in many instances, the right-of-way width was established prior to
the home actually being built, and the City hadn’t taken any additional
right-of-way since the home was constructed. From his professional stance,
Mr. Culver advised that he’d have difficulty saying where the pavement was in
relationship to the lot lines; but also maintained the need to retain
right-of-way, especially on corner lots.
Member
Cihacek questioned the differences among adjacent lots.
Mr.
Culver advised that some may have been platted properties, and the adjacent
properties may not have ever been platted, but continued as Metes and Bounds
parcels, many which were still evident in Roseville. If those properties
sought a lot split in the future, Mr. Culver advised that they would then be
forced, under current regulations, to include a dedicated right-of-way.
Member
Cihacek opined that the rules seemed arbitrary for adjacent homes, and there
didn’t seem to be a method in place other than historically. Member Cihacek
questioned if there was a remedy for those property owners under current
development trends so they could make their case with the City and be heard
for the merits of their particular situation.
Mr.
Culver responded that this was more of a Community Development Department or
Planning Department discussion. While recognizing the point about arbitrary
rights-of-way widths and how they’re applied or their results, Mr. Culver
advised that his question was whether in practice the right-of-way width of
those properties used as examples tonight prevented the City or County from
operating and maintaining the roadway. Mr. Culver noted that there may be
cases where a new utility or sidewalk was needed, and the right-of-way width
may limit those needs, or more width may be required to install something.
Member
Seigler recognized that there were limits as to what a private property owner
could put inside that box, or limiting green space versus not allowing
construction. Mr. Seigler also recognized that the City may be wary of
giving up control of those areas; however, he reiterated that after 65 years,
when nothing was yet installed there, the City needed to determine what it preferred:
to allow more construction or to increase home sizes.
Member
Cihacek concurred that this appeared to have more of a planning area of
emphasis.
Mr.
Culver stated that, if came down to if we want to allow residents to add
value to their homes on small lots, and what should be considered a valid
variance request. For example, Mr. Culver noted a smaller lot could add a
patio or sunroom addition in the backyard, or other minor options. However,
Mr. Culver noted that from staff’s perspective it was easier to have
something in code speaking to those issues versus allowing variance
applications on a whim or at the leading of changing City Councils or
Planning Commissions in any given year. Mr. Culver opined that the
consequences of that may present other issues in other part of the
community. Mr. Culver concurred that this warranted additional discussion at
the Planning Commission level; and noted there were various considerations as
to if and when a right-of-way or easement was vacated and returned to a
parcel. From his perspective, Mr. Culver advised that he couldn’t always
recommend such a move as being in the best long-term interest of the City.
Member
Cihacek opined that it goes to the fact that some of those lines appear
arbitrary or conditions may have changed; and in some instances, it may
require a new determination under current development trends. Member Cihacek
noted that it would mean increased taxable property if the City gave some of
that land back. However, Member Cihacek opined that the PWEC needed advice
from the planning level to develop a policy in relationship to when
rights-of-way remained important.
Mr.
Schwartz advised that staff could discuss this with the Community Development
Department and bring their viewpoint back to the PWETC for additional
discussion. Mr. Schwartz noted that rights-of-way were a huge consideration
for public projects, especially expansion of county or highway rights-of-way
prohibiting projects due to the high cost, with the cost of right-of-way
acquisition often exceeding the cost of the project itself, making agencies
sensitive to giving any of it up.
8.
Twin Lakes Traffic Study
Mr.
Culver briefly reviewed the recent Twin Lakes Traffic Study update, advising
follow-up discussion could be held at a future PWETC meeting if warranted.
Mr. Culver reviewed the results of that update intended for presentation at
the March 2, 2015 City Council meeting by SRF Consulting Group, and included
in tonight’s meeting packet materials. Mr. Culver clarified that the action
before the City Council was specific to permitting a feasibility study for
extension of Twin Lakes Parkway, with plans and specifications requiring
future City Council approval and other processes before construction and
determining how to fund the project. Mr. Culver noted that this had last
come before the PWETC for discussion in late 2014.
Member
Felice noted that, if this was approved, it would have a huge impact on the
area in connecting transit options currently underway and those being considered
for that area in the near future.
Mr.
Culver advised that the BRT plans had not yet been modeled into the study
until determinations had been made by the Metro Transit and how they intent
to provide a feeder system into the BRT based on ridership and once the BRT
line was in operation. At that time, Mr. Culver opined that there would be a
better feel for impacts on travel demand in the broader Twin Lakes area.
Member
Felice opined that it was even more important as more young families were
coming into Roseville.
Member
Gjerdingen opined that the study was timely in the residential area as well,
with results showing fewer cars feeding into that area than predicted versus
not building the Parkway and the negative traffic impacts with more trips projected.
From his perspective, Member Gjerdingen opined that the Twin Lakes Parkway
appeared to be a big win-win and in creating an urban feel in the Twin Lakes
area given its mixed use intentions.
Member
Gjerdingen noted the assumption for a 6-lane Snelling Avenue, and questioned
if MnDOT had addressed that potential.
Mr.
Culver noted that it was recognized by all parties that some improvements
were needed at intersections along the Snelling Avenue corridor. However, by
recommending 6 lanes, Mr. Culver advised that it put a placeholder to make
sure all agencies noted the need for additional capacity if everything else
was going to work in that area. Mr. Culver admitted that MnDOT had not made
any commitment to additional lanes at this point but the City and County
could continue lobbying them for additional improvements to address capacity
issues.
Further
discussion included the need for increased capacity overall on Snelling
Avenue, including extending the BRT further north to TCAPP; projected
continued traffic growth on Snelling Avenue and how impacts with additional
lanes on I-35W will affect that, with the SRF traffic modeling attempting to
project that need; difficulty crossing Snelling Avenue at various
intersections; potential grade separations that could help alleviate some
issues at key intersections; and how to improve capacity for at-grade
intersections (e.g. Lydia Avenue).
Additional
discussion included signage and trailblazing signs to guide those less
familiar with the areas adjacent to Snelling Avenue.
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – March 24, 2015
·
Leaf
Collection Program Discussion
·
System-wide
Pavement Delamination Issues (Culver)
Mr. Culver advised that the top
layer of pavement stripping on local streets seems to have a theme with sealcoating
issues. Mr. Culver advised that staff would return with options for the
PWETC to consider making a recommendation on potentially stopping sealcoating
for a time, and the risks involved both pro and con, in doing so; and budget
scenarios and pavement life cycle impacts and maintenance in place of
sealcoating.
·
Sewer
and Water Utility Lateral Ownership Continued Discussion
·
Solar
Update
·
Soil
quality examination pavements for parking and the process (Cihacek)
·
Elections
in April of a Chair and Vice Chair (Stenlund)
While he was willing to continue
chairing the meeting if no one else stepped forward, Chair Stenlund asked
that commissioners give consideration to this upcoming election as new
commissioners come on board.
10.
Adjourn
Member Cihacek moved, Member
Felice seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:48 p.m.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|