|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 6:30 p.m.
- Introduction / Call Roll /Swearing in of New Members
Vice Chair Cihacek called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and Public Works Director Mark
Culver called the roll.
Swearing
in of New Member
Vice Chair Cihacek administered
the Oath of Office to newly-appointed PWETC member Thomas Trainor and, along
with his colleagues, welcomed Commissioner Trainer to the PWETC.
As way of introduction, each
commissioner provided a brief biography and their levels of interest through
serving on the PWETC.
Present: Vice
Chair Brian Cihacek; and Members John Heimerl, Kody Thurnau, Sarah Brodt
Lenz, Joe Wozniak, Thomas Trainor, and Duane Seigler
Staff
Present: Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer and
City Engineer Luke Sandstrom
- Election of Officers
Chair
Member Lenz moved nomination of,
and Member Wozniak seconded, appointment of Member Cihacek to serve as Chair
of the PWETC for the term of one year.
Member Cihacek accepted the
appointment.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Vice Chair
Member Wozniak moved nomination
of, and Member Heimerl seconded appointment of Member Lenz of to serve as
Vice Chair of the PWETC for the term of one year.
Member Lenz accepted the
appointment.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
- Public Comments
None.
- Approval of March 22, 2016 Meeting Minutes
Member Wozniak moved, Member Lenz
seconded, approval of the March 22, 2016 meeting minutes as presented.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
- Communication Items
Assistant Public Works Director
Jesse Freihammer and City Engineer Luke Sandstrom provided additional
comments and a brief review and update on projects and maintenance activities
listed in the staff report dated April 26, 2016.
Discussion included:
Member Wozniak noted approval by the
City Council at their meeting last night of a grant for Langton Lake. Member
Wozniak expressed his interest in additional information on other aspects
happening in the city that may be of interest to the PWETC and asked staff to
provide that information to the PWETC in future reports.
Chair Cihacek agreed, noting the
PWETC’s interest in areas of significant development in the near future.
Member Lenz also agreed,
expressing interest in the recent Brownfields work and future plans, as well
as mitigation of water quality issues and concerns.
These requests were duly noted by
Mr. Freihammer.
Twin Lakes Parkway
Extension/Additional Area Planning Considerations
Further discussion included
details of the Twin Lakes Parkway extension as a 2016 project currently
underway, and proposed Twin Lakes Area East Collector Improvement Project
being studied with preliminary designs in process as authorized by the City
Council earlier this month, and intended as an alternate east/west corridor
to Snelling Avenue and providing much-needed geometric improvements at
Terrace Drive and Lincoln Drive, with staff providing a preliminary concept
design. As part of that redesign, Mr. Freihammer noted the intent would be
to improve directional flow and vacation of the Terrace Drive dead-end at
Snelling Avenue. At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Freihammer reviewed
the notification and public hearing process for vacating a road and whether
or not an easement may be retained by the city.
Further discussion ensued related
to the proposed design and restriping a center turn lane, anticipated volume
increase in projected modeling, but not sufficient enough to warrant a
signal, and brief consideration of but eventual lack of feasibility
determined for considering a roundabout for the area.
Mr. Freihammer advised that the
intended improvements would be to equalize traffic between County Road C-2
and Lydia Avenue, and hopefully pull some traffic from Lydia Avenue by
increasing left bound capacity with a double left turn. As part of the
redesign, Mr. Freihammer noted that, since MnDOT has signal light replacement
scheduled in 2019, the project may occur in a phased design until the
installation of that light, since the city is responsible for the cost of
half of the signal. Mr. Freihammer clarified that prior to any final design
– if and when the City Council approves the project – there would be
neighborhood meetings held to garner their input on any proposed design.
Lexington Avenue/Highway 336
Bridge Replacement Project
Mr. Freihammer provided a brief
update on the MnDOT bridge construction project, noting that ramps are
currently closed, with Lexington Avenue scheduled for closure May 31, 2016.
Discussion ensued regarding
specific dates for closure of adjacent ramps, with none yet identified by
staff, as MnDot rebuilds and/or closure of the Hamline Avenue and Dale Street
ramps onto westbound Highway 36. Staff assured the PWETC that they would
pass on the information to the public and PWETC as soon as the information
became available and during phases of the projects.
Mr. Freihammer announced the
kick-off of the Metro Transit A-Line BRT Project on June 11, 2016,
highlighting the new Roseville service.
Recycling Contract RFP
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Freihammer reported on the City Council’s vote to authorize the Recycling
Contract Request for Proposals (RFP) with the required pre-bid meeting held
earlier today with potential proposers and Public Works Director Culver and
Environmental Engineer Johnson, with 4-5 contractors in attendance and
allowing 2-3 weeks for submission and anticipated approval in late May or
early June.
Solar Project
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Freihammer reported that there was no news on the solar project, with Mr.
Culver reporting to him earlier today that staff was still waiting
information from the company. With the ongoing delays experienced with this
proposal, Mr. Freihammer noted that it was being unpractical that this offer
would still be good, and other options may be indicated.
- Metro Transit Presentation
Mr. Freihammer introduced Greg
Williams, new Assistant Director of Facilities Management from Metro Transit,
formerly in facility management at the University of Minnesota for the last
twenty years, most recently on the St. Paul campus adjacent to Roseville.
Mr. Williams in turn introduced his colleague also attending tonight, Paul
Lamb, an Engineer with the Metro Transit Engineering and Facilities
Department.
Greg Williams
Mr. Williams provided a short
presentation highlighting some of the recent changes in service area with
shelter ownership, locations and policies and their plan for potential
shelters within Roseville. Mr. Williams’ presentation included Metro
Transit’s mission statement, guiding principles, and facilities maintenance
mission statement. Mr. Williams reported that Metro Transit owned 1,100
shelters, 18 Green Line platforms, 17 Blue Line platforms, 4 Northstar
platforms, 38 park and rides; with twelve one-person crews assigned to clean
and maintain and service 82.5 shelters or stops per person per day.
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
neither Mr. Williams or Mr. Lamb were able to definitely name the number of
shelters owned/operated by external agencies; but noted those owned by Metro
Transit were clearly identified and branded as such.
Mr. Williams outlined what
“maintenance” consisted of at the various sites (e.g. power washing; trash
emptying and debris pick-up; sweeping concrete pads and gutters; washing
shelter benches, trash cans and lids, gutters, accessories, and the interior
sidewalks and bus platforms; washing and/or monitoring advertising displays
and bus schedule holders; washing ceiling panels, batter boxes, and solar
panels, etc.). Non-routine cleaning reported on by Mr. Williams included
complaint-driven items responded to within one business day of notification
and involving anything from typical cleaning to bio-hazard issues. Mr.
Williams noted that frequency of cleaning among the platforms and/or shelters
varied vastly among their different uses and activity levels, evenly spaced
to reduce time between cleanings. For those stops and/or shelters with higher
ridership, Mr. Williams advised they required additional or higher levels of
cleaning and on a more frequent basis as warranted. Mr. Williams further
reported that, obviously, those with lower ridership may receive less
frequent cleaning or maintenance.
Mr. Williams reported on expanded
facilities maintenance with 55 new design passenger shelters and coordination
with project offices, including engineering and construction staff during the
design/construction phases. As part of Metro Transit’s sustainability and
environmental leadership efforts, Mr. Williams noted their attempts to minimize
waste, reduce energy consumption, and comply with state mandates including
stormwater mitigation. Mr. Williams noted that preservation challenges
included physical demands, vandalism, accidents and weather-related concerns.
Mr. Williams displayed a map
showing Roseville weekday boarding averages at bus stops currently without
shelters.
Mr. Lamb reviewed the criteria
for designing and placing more shelters, with particular emphasis given to
areas with specific concentrations of poverty and minority populations based
on receipt of federal funding requiring certain situations for using that
funding; and ongoing revisions of Metro Transit’s capital program accordingly
and considering criteria for other boarding stops.
Mr. Lamb further reviewed the
background used for boardings and shelters within the metropolitan
Minneapolis/St. Paul area, with focus on areas with more density, such as
shelters located for stops showing 40 or more boarders per day in urban
areas, and 25+ boarders per day in less dense suburban areas. If boardings
show lower than 25 per day, Mr. Lamb noted that shelters are not typically
considered at those sites due to the capital costs and extensive maintenance
costs. Mr. Lamb noted that annual cost estimates for shelter maintenance were
between $10,000 and $11,000 per shelter. With additional funding available
for up to 150 new shelters, Mr. Lamb advised that Metro Transit was reviewing
where best to place them, obviously as previously noted, often tied to
federal funding and those areas showing higher poverty and/or minority
populations.
Member Lenz asked that Mr.
Williams speak to physical accessibility of Metro Transit bus stops,
providing various examples of concerns in that accessibility.
Mr. Williams noted that
maintaining accessibility at bus stops and/or shelters was always a
challenge, and Metro Transit was attempting to implement a better bus stops
program,” similar to the highway “Adopt-a-Highway Program,” but instead an
“Adopt-a-Shelter” program, seeking partners (e.g. businesses or private
individuals) to monitor shelters or stops in their area to take on some of
the daily maintenance (e.g. snow or trash removal, window cleaning, etc.).
Mr. Williams reported one landscape firm in the south metropolitan area that
had taken the charge to beautify shelters with plantings, and noted that by
their taking on that shared ownership it provided significant assistance to
Metro Transit in their efforts. Mr. Williams stated it was his hope to
further expand that program. Mr. Williams noted that in some cases, it was
beneficial to a business owner and Metro Transit if a shelter or stop may
block their business or if their branding wasn’t getting out to the street;
and with this shared partnership, it allowed a participating business to bring
their branding or identification into the shelter while using the Metro
Transit’s aesthetic. In exchange for letting them advertise their business
in or on the shelter, Mr. Williams reported the business took on some of the
maintenance responsibilities.
Mr. Williams noted that Metro
Transit supervisors drove routes to monitor stops and shelters; assuring the
PWETC that Metro Transit took customer feedback seriously and used that as a
tool to track and grade their performance. However, with limited personnel
available, Mr. Williams noted that snow removal frequently trumped all else,
with safety being their first concern and consideration.
Specific to citing bus stops, or
determining whether or not a stop or shelter is placed, Member Lenz asked how
much influence Metro Transit had in applying to counties or cities to
mitigate lacking sidewalks.
Mr. Williams responded that, in
cases where shelters are indicated, and considering Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and access issues, if an alternative site is close and
would provide better access (e.g. mid-block versus at an intersection), that
would be considered. As to Metro Transit exerting pressure on Ramsey County,
Mr. Williams noted that they could only make requests, and that everyone had
their respective budgets and competing interests for those available funds.
Regarding bus stop and shelter
planning, Chair Cihacek asked to what extent Metro Transit took into
consideration area amenities (e.g. access) to save maintenance costs.
Mr. Lamb responded that for the
last 1.5 years, Metro Transit’s planning had been run by city and county
staff to make sure adequate sidewalk and pedestrian ramps were available at
that location. If stops are proposed mid-block, Mr. Lamb noted the necessity
of a curb cut and pedestrian ramp and crosswalk also being available.
In terms of bus stops
specifically, Mr. Lamb advised that he wasn’t as involved with those
locations, admitting he had observed a fair number without adequate area
and/or sidewalks. However, since spacing didn’t require as much of an
investment from Metro Transit, Mr. Lamb opined that more flexibility may be
available and considered in deploying ramps or placing stops in areas
indicating high handicapped or wheeled device access was needed. Mr. Lamb
advised that additional pedestrian improvements would be considered there
through a cement block at the stop or an ADA ramp for boarding purposes to
address accessibility for boarders.
Specific to bus routes #227 and
#229, across County Road C and at Victoria Street, Member Lenz noted the
inability to cross or access that area to board if using a wheelchair.
Mr. Lamb noted that area for
further Metro Transit review, and advised that they attempted to work with
counties and cities, and assured the PWETC that it was not their practice to
not attempt sidewalk access as needed even with limited funding available.
Member Lenz opined that there
shouldn’t even be bus stops at those sites, since no one maintains or cleans
them, summer or winter; and while recognizing the spacing concept, further
opined that a stop at those sites wasn’t practical. Member Lenz suggested
longer stops between or flagged stops as an option versus grass verges not
allowing safe boarding.
Mr. Lamb advised that he would
report those concerns to Metro Transit’s engineering staff during capital
discussions; and asked that Member Lenz contact him personally at Metro
Transit with the specific stops of concern.
As another example, Member
Seigler noted a bus stop (e.g. a bus stop sign only) in front of his home
that he personally maintained.
From a maintenance point of view,
Member Lenz clarified that she wasn’t suggesting Metro Transit should
maintain those grass verges she had referenced, but to not make them bus
stops in the first place if they are unsafe for use.
Chair Cihacek refocused the
discussion on maintenance for bus stops versus shelters, opining stops were
obviously of higher concern due their lack of protection for boarders. Also,
Chair Cihacek asked the procedure to install a sign, where and who was
responsible for installing them.
Mr. Lamb advised that, if in a
public right-of-way, Metro Transit had the ability to put a stop anywhere
reasonable, but worked with the appropriate municipality’s public works
department to do so.
Chair Cihacek suggested that
Metro Transit work with municipalities such as Roseville for parks with empty
parking lots to install a stop nearby, since those areas typically already
had pedestrian facilities related to them. Chair Cihacek suggested this may
allow all parties a more convenience and cost-effective option by using that
existing infrastructure as opposed to moving a stop 10’ one way or another.
Mr. Williams duly noted that
idea, offering to definitely look at that option, noting use of church
parking lots as park and ride facilities in those areas without a larger
Metro Transit park and ride facility in place.
By putting a bus stop sign by
existing facilities, whether on a sidewalk or by a commercial or park area,
Chair Cihacek opined that it would allow Metro Transit to capture existing
infrastructure versus relying on a homeowner for maintenance of the stops;
and with a shared and intentional maintenance program versus relying on
private partners such as Member Seigler with a bus stop in his front yard.
Mr. Lamb noted that bus
operations try to do so if within a certain area to take advantage of
existing sidewalks when only a short distance. However, in those cases with
longer distances, such as a matter of blocks, Mr. Lamb noted that then Metro
Transit had to make a decision if there was no responsible party or if it
would require a longer distance for boarders to walk to access the bus.
Chair Cihacek asked Member Lenz,
with the volunteer assistance offered by Member Wozniak, to prepare a list
for the PWETC and Metro Transit staff’s information.
Mr. Lamb agreed with that effort,
noting the number of stops dealt with by Metro Transit, and their reliance on
the public and municipalities for comments and areas with the worst sites, or
ideas for improvement and/or prioritization.
Mr. Williams agreed with his
support of that list, noting it was feasible that some areas had been
overlooked in the past.
Member Thurnau asked how involved
Metro Transit was in the municipal comprehensive plan process as part of
infrastructure improvements. Member Thurnau opined that would be valuable
input to have during the process in considering pedestrian improvements as
well as potential increased capacity for Metro Transit.
Mr. Williams noted that Metro
Transit’s transit-oriented development department works directly with
counties and cities to look for development opportunities. For example, Mr.
Williams noted his involvement at this time with the SE Light Rail Transit
work with applicable counties and municipalities in related development
opportunities. Mr. Williams agreed that the comprehensive plan process would
provide a great opportunity to make that additional connection.
Chair Cihacek noted that since
the city’s comprehensive plan goes through the Metropolitan Council, while
unsure who did the actual review, asked who it would be most beneficial for
the city to contact on their staff and/or which department.
Mr. Lamb advised that he would
provide that information to Roseville staff for their planning group to
review those aspects of the comprehensive plan before it even gets to the
Metropolitan Council.
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Freihammer reviewed the city’s comprehensive plan process and intent for
all transportation aspects to be integrated with that update (e.g.
pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular), anticipated to be initiated within the
next six months as directed by the City Council.
Chair Cihacek asked individual
PWETC members to think about the information they wanted Metro Transit to
provide to staff for dissemination to the PWETC as part of their future work
on the comprehensive plan transportation aspects.
From Metro Transit’s perspective,
Mr. Lamb advised he would do the same on their end with their staff to make
sure the appropriate and most helpful level of data and input is provided to
Roseville staff and the PWETC.
At the request of Member Seigler,
it was determined that the presentation data shared on Roseville boardings
per location was available for the public and PWETC, but was in GIS format.
Mr. Lamb advised he would get Roseville staff additional information on how
to make access of that data easier.
For the viewing public, Member
Heimerl asked for contact information for those having any transit issues or
concerns, with Mr. Lamb referring the public to the Metro Transit website or
customer information phone number, as well as it being posted in shelters.
During his short six months at
Metro Transit, Mr. Williams noted their customer-focused interests and his
favorable impression with treatment of riders equitably. Recognizing that
future transit isn’t sustainable under current models, Mr. Williams noted the
interest in providing a mass transit product to Roseville, as well as the
bigger picture to assist with continued growth. Mr. Williams thanked the
PWETC and Roseville staff for their support, and asked that they feel free to
contact him personally at Metro Transit with ideas or if there was any way he
could help.
On behalf of the PWETC, Chair
Cihacek thanked Mr. Williams and Mr. Lamb for their attendance, presentation,
and valuable information.
- ADA Transition Presentation
Mr. Freihammer introduced
in-house staff work to-date for creation and adoption of a citywide
transition plan, as required by law, for Americans with disabilities Act
(ADA) for the City of Roseville.
City Engineer Luke Sandstrom
provided a presentation on the draft plan (Attachment A) and how the city
transitions into citywide ADA compliance. At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Sandstrom advised that anything not currently at a proper grade or based
on the now dated 1990 ADA requirements, would need replaced or revised. Mr.
Sandstrom noted that this typically focused on public rights-of-way and areas
not at today’s proper grades for curb ramps. While required by law now, Mr.
Sandstrom noted that the city had been proactively updating them when doing a
project within the area, in order to facilitate Roseville residents and
visitors to the area having physical and/or visual issues.
Mr. Sandstrom reviewed the
proposed plan, and various components including a policy, schedule,
assignment of an ADA Coordinator (Mr. Freihammer), collection of inspections
and data retention, grievance procedures for the public’s awareness, and
design procedures. Mr. Sandstrom advised that this would be similar to the
city’s annual Pavement Management Plan (PMP) or street maintenance projects,
with inspections performed for all pedestrian facilities within a particular
project area, at which time they would be brought into compliance. As
previously noted, Mr. Sandstrom advised that even without an official ADA
plan in place the city had been making necessary revisions for years.
As part of his presentation, Mr.
Sandstrom reviewed the various scenarios and diagrams of a cross slope for
specific ranges (steepness) domes for visually impaired to feel out, grades
for tapering the curb into the ramp and lip; and other steps to eliminate
tripping hazards. Mr. Sandstrom advised that staff was currently finalizing
its data collection process, and would ultimately begin inspections,
subsequently incorporating that data into its asset management plan. Mr.
Sandstrom reported on the 3-2-1 ranking system and the criteria of each (e.g.
full compliance, non-compliant with small modification needed, or full
replacement) and space requirements needed and/or available to being the
grade into proper alignment.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Freihammer estimated that the cost to remove and replace curb and gutter
was approximately $30 to $40 per foot; typically running $7,000 to $8,000 per
ramp; multiplied by four an intersection.
Mr. Sandstrom continued the
presentation with why inspections were necessary since the 10-year-old ADA
law was no longer compliant; and provided various photographic examples of
ramps. Mr. Sandstrom referenced the appendix that would be included in the
ADA transition plan with curbs identified and catalogued by map and list,
including designating which are city-, county- or state owned.
Mr. Sandstrom reviewed a draft
grievance or complaint procedure for use by residents to bring areas to the
city’s attention, and available on the city website or at city hall, or by
leaving a recorded message at City Hall; and subsequent staff field investigations,
and a 30-day response timeframe to the submitter and ranking for resolution.
Mr. Sandstrom noted designs going
forward to bring ramps up to current requirements/standards, with MnDOT plan
sheets available for five different scenarios, and typically updated
annually. Mr. Sandstrom advised that those plan sheets will become part of
the ADA transition plan for Roseville, and every project built to ADA
standards, whether a local or Minnesota State Aid (MSA) street.
Mr. Freihammer noted that this
involves more than just curb ramps, but also involved a few bus shelters
owned by the City (Larpenteur Avenue) that may fall under this plan to ensure
they are accessible to all residents, as well as including any sidewalk or
pathway within the city’s jurisdiction. Beyond those curb ramps, Mr.
Freihammer noted historical construction, including driveways needing the
cross slope revised to match the sidewalk, and part of staff’s consideration
for any new building permit applications to make sure this is part of that
focus for users of sidewalks and pathways.
At the request of Member Lenz,
Mr. Freihammer clarified that the city didn’t own any signals itself, with
ownership by Ramsey County and/or MnDOT, with both agencies proving quite
receptive to automatic pedestrian signals, known as APS (talking signals) at
intersections. While unable to define how proactive the process had been
to-date, Mr. Freihammer advised that upgrading was being done upon request,
while unsure of the number of retrofits done prior to a full signal upgrade.
Member Wozniak questioned how
familiar residents were of how and where to file complaints about ADA
concerns, and asked staff to provide information to make that determination,
duly noted by staff.
Member Lenz suggested the City’s
Human Rights Commission as another resource to work with for any compliance
concerns of residents.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Freihammer reviewed the transition plan in identifying those areas
out-of-compliance, and how the plan dictates how to address each scenario on
a case by case basis.
- MS4 Updates
For the benefit of the PWETC, and
prior to next month’s annual public hearing, Mr. Freihammer provided a
preliminary review of the City’s Municipal Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit
through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and its periodic review
and updating. Mr. Freihammer noted that this allowed the city to discharge
stormwater into local water resources, and had been previously updated in
2013. Mr. Freihammer reviewed those ordinances (3) that staff recommended
revising in the near future as the PWETC’s recommendation for approval to the
City Council.
Mr. Freihammer referenced
Attachment D entitled, “Draft Stormwater Management Standards” compared to
current standards, and erosion control and stormwater drainage ordinances as
applicable.
Discussion included staff’s
suggestion to mimic watershed district stormwater volume of 1.1” versus the
city’s current 1.0”, and related triggers for watershed district action
versus those too small to do so;
PWETC members noted some
difficulty in identifying specific areas in the attachments to consider this
revised language, asking that staff make sure appropriate sections are
defined in future iterations for easier reference by the PWETC in their
review.
Mr. Freihammer continued to
review other proposed revisions tied to updated ordinance, including reducing
application to erosion control sites of 5,000 square feet versus the current
standard of 10,000 square feet and how that threshold would be triggered for
application of those standards and involving public and private properties
throughout the city.
Discussion ensued as to whether
or not having these considerations under one permit was feasible and more
prudent for ease of use; creation of another tier within the city fee
schedule depending on the threshold and inspection needs as indicated; and
combining one set of rules under one ordinance and one permit unless
significant differentials were involved.
Mr. Freihammer noted other minor
updates suggested by staff for MS4 permit requirements; but advised that the
draft Stormwater Impact Fund (Attachment C) was a new addition. Mr.
Freihammer explained its intent for standards to apply to development and/or
redevelopment projects within the city and how they may or may not help
achieve the water resource goals of the city’s Surface Water Management Plan
(SWMP) and maintain compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) municipal permit program and its standards.
Specifically, Mr. Freihammer
noted this would address residential properties at or over the 30% impervious
surface restrictions, and mitigation efforts to address them or a fee in lieu
of that mitigation to serve as a fund to offset those impacts. Mr.
Freihammer reviewed the draft fund as provided, and intent for a one-time fee
applied to a separate fund for use in stormwater projects located within that
particular watershed district in which the properties are located. Mr.
Freihammer opined that this would save staff resources, as they had just
started going through those best management practices (BMP’s) such as
raingardens that had been installed five years ago as part of the
recertification process.
Discussion ensued about the
various scenarios that may occur under this requirement, with Member Seigler
expressing personal concerns based on his particular lot among others
citywide that may have significant easements considerably beyond what may
ever be required and remaining dormant for years without the property owners
ability to have that area considered as part of their green space.
Further discussion included how
impervious calculations were done, with staff clarifying that those
calculations included drainage and utility easements; lots historically over
the 30% impervious coverage allotment and already non-compliant; how a
typical resident understood and complied with the calculations in determining
that 30% coverage ratio and whether or not they needed a permit; lot shapes
dictating rights-of-way and easement issues and in defining public/private space;
and lack of standards citywide that create significant disadvantages for some
property owners and significant advantages for others depending on the time
and way they were developed.
Additional discussion included
how to determine the area for the 30% impervious coverage rule; goal of
mitigating runoff, especially in problem areas in the city; whether a
standard percentage should be used or a lower percentage for areas with high
runoff issues.
After further deliberation, Chair
Cihacek noted there was some disagreement among PWETC members as to the
stormwater permit fund and management standards, with the only apparent area
of consensus tonight: moving from the city’s current 1.0” to 1.5” watershed
district stormwater volume standard
With Mr. Freihammer advising that
staff was looking for a PWETC recommendation to allow them to bring all
components to the City Council at one time, Chair Cihacek directed staff to
develop a natural conformance standard and return to the next PWETC meeting
with that. Also, Chair Cihacek asked that staff return with an examination
of how runoff calculations related to total lot size and whether or not the
rights-of-way or easement areas could be utilized or how that could be
rectified or through what percentage.
Member Trainor noted controversy
within the state on use of wetland credits; with Mr. Freihammer advising that
the city had utilized that program for the recent Victoria Street project.
Member Trainor suggested using
that type of program versus an impact fund to get the difference, recognizing
the difference between residents and developers who may use it as an “out”
for due diligence elimination on their part.
Mr. Freihammer responded that the
city currently had a tiered structure for larger projects provided they can
prove mitigation on the site and justify why stormwater isn’t addressed on
site. Mr. Freihammer suggested one area in which this may apply and an
example of the exception to the rule with or without this, was the recent
demolition of the former ICO building at the intersection of Larpenteur
Avenue and Rice Street. In city staff’s work with the project engineer, Mr.
Freihammer reported that they would have to mitigate their stormwater
management, but there was no adjacent stormwater and it would flow directly
to the street forever. Mr. Freihammer noted it wasn’t feasible to install
underground storage as there was no place for infiltration or no pipe
discharge as the soils in that area were not amenable to that. Therefore,
Mr. Freihammer noted that site may be able to mitigate through a fee in lieu
of for the portion that could not be mitigated.
Mr. Freihammer advised that there
were few commercial permits having a larger impact for which this situation
could apply, recollecting only one or two others where this proposed fund
could have been practically used without doing something extreme.
Chair Cihacek asked if there was
a net gain for staff efficiency with this recommendation versus inspection
and recertification of BMP’s.
Mr. Freihammer noted that any
project would have to go through some type of permitting project, but with
residential projects, once a stormwater impact fee had been collected, it
would be allotted to an account for larger projects to construct an oversized
pond or rain garden, or by building an additional one in that area; and would
not require long-term maintenance or recertification every five years. For
residential projects, Mr. Freihammer opined there could be significant staff
savings as well as savings for residents with no need for staff sending
letters to property owners to prove their site was still working as
designed. On the commercial side, Mr. Freihammer opined there may be fewer
savings, and may only apply to those unique sites.
Chair Cihacek suggested for the
residential side, the same results may be able to be accomplished through
another mechanism, such as buy-in versus policy, stormwater mitigation and
assessment as described by staff; but suggested staff review whether or not
there may be a different mechanism to do so and a different fiduciary
function to accomplish the same goal without impacting current practices or
changing a policy that may not actually need changing, with the recognized
limited value of the policy from a commercial project perspective.
Discussion ensued regarding
potential buy-in through expansion and assessment with a potential credit for
your lot if a project provides value to the surrounding area as well;
examples of types of projects (e.g. recent Corpus Christi rain garden);
whether or not the project and credit follows the property; how overbuilding
area systems could tie in; staff management of 500 rain gardens versus only
50 stormwater projects with the city controlling their maintenance; and if
and when the door closed for buy-in based on the project schedule.
Further discussion included
difficulties identified by staff for random locations and rationale for
remaining within one of the three specific watershed districts; with the
intended operation for the city similar to that of existing watershed
districts to build up credits to be used for over-sizing applicable systems
to address mitigation efforts and improve the overall capacity.
At the request of the PWETC for
better clarify, staff offered to provide more detailed information on the
intent, and differentials between residential and commercial applications;
and how the fee would be applied and where it would go.
Chair Cihacek noted that there
appeared to be some interest of the PWETC in the concept, but more details
were needed on how it was intended to function and ultimately work short- and
long-term.
Member Seigler addressed the
majority of Roseville’s housing stock and implications to and limits of those
properties as a consideration in this stormwater and runoff discussion.
Member Seigler cautioned that if the runoff concern got in the way of the
city’s desire to continue improving its housing stock, or if too many rules
were made negating the possibility of improving that existing housing stock,
it would not only result in rundown housing, but relocation of residents to
other suburbs. Member Seigler opined that if rules were made so housing
stock couldn’t be improved if the lot sizes were too small, it would kill the
city. Member Seigler suggested the standard be what the best water retention
that could be achieved for the typical 1,200 square foot home in the suburban
metropolitan area. Member Seigler admitted he had concerns with anything
that got in the way of that goal; and was not interested in having the city do
anything resulting in the decline of its housing stock, his number one
concern.
From staff’s perspective, Mr.
Freihammer advised that while fees were less impactful, since they were only
one-time, upfront fees, the result would be that there would only be the
initial cost of installation, with no long-term costs for maintenance.
At the request of Member Lenz,
Mr. Freihammer confirmed that if a home were demolished and new construction
put in its place, it would push the reset button and require that new stormwater
and environmental requirements were then met.
Member Seigler opined that
anything a homeowner would do would restart the calculations; and reiterated
that the city needed to find a way to push the boundary lines out, further
opining that current easements were extreme, especially if remaining unused
up to this point; or in other words, he supported a “use them or lose them”
scenario.
Mr. Freihammer clarified that
while there may not be anything obvious above-ground on rights-of-way, often
there were underground utilities.
Member Seigler reiterated that,
no matter a variance could apply, and the area should be included as part of
your property, especially if over a 65-year period, as is his personal case,
the easement had never been used, opining that the city should lose any
ability to use the easement or right-of-way.
Chair Cihacek noted this issue
had come up before, with there being no standard right-of-way easement
creating differentials among neighbors for comparison, depending on when their
property was platted or when their home was built.
Member Seigler suggested that
should be re-analyzed when a resident remodeled of sought to improve their
property.
Specific to Items 2 and 3 of
Attachment C, Chair Cihacek noted the apparent lack of consensus; with
conceptual agreement with lowering the stormwater volume from 10,000 square
feet to 5,000 square feet to be consistent with that of watershed districts;
and agreement in principle, but not conforming with reality. Specifically,
Chair Cihacek noted the need for more details on the permit process and
tangible impacts for water quality overall as part of that stormwater
management goal.
Regarding the fund itself, Chair
Cihacek asked that staff flesh out how the fund actually works (e.g. detailed
financing, how and if it can be borrowed against, whether it would remain
segregated or incorporated in the General Fund, how it could or would work
with tax increment financing or other financing tools) to determine what was
actually viable.
Member Seigler agreed, opining
that this comes across as a gimmick for him right now.
While not having the actual data
available tonight, Mr. Freihammer noted that building permit applications
continued to increase annually as residents expand their homes.
Member Wozniak noted his
difficulty in understanding the design of these attachments: whether as fact
sheets or standards; and suggested that for the general public, plainer
language was needed to get across their intent.
Chair Cihacek suggested a
breakdown between residential and commercial properties and applications,
since the decision-making could be different and involve a different process
for both applications; as well as making it easier to read.
- Possible Items for Next Meeting – May 24, 2016
·
Annual MS4 Permit Public Hearing by Environmental
Engineer Ryan Johnson
·
Follow-up on Tonight’s Stormwater Discussion/Additional
Information
·
Communication items from Staff
·
Solar Process Update
·
Recycling RFP Status Update
·
Right-of-Way Discussion (Seigler)
Member Seigler asked that staff,
including Public Works Director Culver, return with something more formal,
including input from the Planning Commission on how calculations are done.
·
Pathway Master Plan Update and its Conformance to other
Development Plans (Cihacek)
Staff reiterated that this would
be addressed, including specific bus routes, as part of the upcoming
comprehensive plan update/transportation component. Mr. Freihammer also
noted that the surface water management plan would also be addressed as part of
that process, with RFP’s going out tomorrow for a consultant for the
comprehensive plan update and involving multiple meetings with the PWETC.
·
Ordinance Updates (Mr. Freihammer)
Mr. Freihammer advised that two
additional ordinances would be coming forward for PWETC discussion: sump pump
clarifications as they related to the I and I and suggested language
revisions from staff and for PWETC review; and also for private hydrants and
creation of an ordinance addressing their installation and maintenance.
Member Seigler asked staff to
provide the number of new meter installations and related data.
Chair Cihacek asked that staff
provide the PWETC, as part of next month’s meeting packet, the updated PWETC
charge and uniform commission code information governing the PWETC for review
by individual members and as a body.
- Adjourn
Member Lenz moved, Member Thurnau
seconded, adjournment of the PWETC at approximately 8:31 p.m.
Ayes: 7
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|