|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 6:30 p.m.
- Introduction / Call Roll / Swearing in of New Members
Vice Chair Lenz called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and Assistant Public Works
Director Jesse Freihammer called the roll.
Present: Vice
Chair Sarah Brodt Lenz; and Members Joe Wozniak, John Heimerl, Thomas
Trainor, and Duane Seigler; with Chair Brian Cihacek arriving at
approximately 6:35 p.m.
Excused: Member
Kody Thurnau
Staff
Present: Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer and
Environmental Engineer Ryan Johnson
- Public Comments
None.
Vice Chair Lenz announced
vacancies on the Human Rights and Community Engagement Commissions, along
with the appointment process and schedule.
Chair Cihacek arrived at this
time, approximately 6:35 p.m. and Vice Chair Lenz turned the gavel over to
him.
- Election of Ethics Commission Member
With no other PWETC members
expressing interesting in serving on the Ethics Commission, Chair Cihacek
volunteered to do so, and without objection he was so appointed.
- Approval of April 26, 2016 Meeting Minutes
Member Wozniak moved, Member
Heimerl seconded, approval of the April 24, 2016 meeting minutes as amended
Corrections:
·
Page 1, Line 3 (Recording Secretary)
Correction:
Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer called the roll.
·
Page 3, Line 85 (Wozniak)
Typographical
correction: Change “revised” to “reviewed”
Ayes: 6
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
- Communication Items
Assistant Public Works Director
Jesse Freihammer provided additional comments and a brief review and update
on projects and maintenance activities listed in the staff report dated May
24, 2016.
Discussion included: Staff’s
identification of the four contractors submitting Recycling RFPs; and Highway
36 construction detour routes confirmed and on effects to ramps at Dale
Street and Hamline Avenue at Highway 36.
Cherrywood Pointe Project
At the request of Member Lenz,
Mr. Freihammer advised that a Public Improvement Contract between the
developer and city had been approved by the City Council to address costs by
the developer for roads and other infrastructure, including relocation of a
sanitary sewer line on the property and installation of several additional
sidewalk segments along a portion of Lexington Avenue and Woodhill Drive as
part of the developer’s project expense.
At the further request of Member
Lenz, Mr. Freihammer noted that the sidewalk segments on Woodhill Drive would
not connect with other segments in the immediate future.
City Planner Thomas Paschke
advised that the United Properties project further east on Woodhill Drive at
Victoria Street would provide additional sidewalk segments as well and result
in a smaller gap to address moving forward, with the individual developers
paying for the cost of the segments and further reducing the city’s cost.
- Tree Credit Program
Interim Community Development
Director Kari Collins and City Planner Thomas Paschke were present to receive
feedback from the PWETC on a pending city policy related to tree replacement
on adjacent private property or public property city wide, and in
establishing a policy on tree replacement fund expenditures in lieu of
replacements.
City Planner Paschke provided a
brief presentation on the draft policy features to-date to help facilitate
discussion with commissioners to solicit their input.
Mr. Paschke reviewed the
direction from the City Council instructing staff to draft the tree
replacement policy as represented in Attachment A, and consult with the PWETC
and Parks & Recreation Commission. Mr. Paschke reviewed some discussion
points to facilitate and solicit that input (Attachment B).
Mr. Paschke reviewed the Tree
Preservation Ordinance and need for language built into city code for replacement
of trees on public property if unable to be accommodated on the development
site itself via a designated formula. Mr. Paschke advised that the City
Council had approved a $500 per tree required in lieu of tree replacement
based on caliper size of the removed trees. In summary, Mr. Paschke advised
the developer could replace the trees on their site or within a certain area,
or pay a fee accordingly.
Attachment A
Member Seigler stated that he was
not familiar with this tree policy at all.
Mr. Paschke reiterated that this
was a new policy, still in draft form, and was being undertaken subsequent to
the City Council’s recently revised and now approved tree preservation
ordinance adopted for any and all developments for preservation or
replacement on site of by other means (e.g. fee) or replacement on other
sites. Using several of the more recent community development projects, Mr.
Paschke provided examples.
At the request of Member Lenz,
Mr. Paschke confirmed that this policy would not affect private property, but
would function somewhat similarly to the city’s designated Park Dedication
Fund except this would affect developments of three or more lots (e.g.
Wheaton Woods Project off Dale Street and Wheaton Avenue) with review of
submitted tree plans.
Member Seigler asked if adjacent
communities had similar policies.
Mr. Paschke responded that many
metropolitan municipalities had such policies, especially now when urban
communities were trying to preserve green space and mature trees. Mr.
Paschke advised that he didn’t have a list of those communities available,
but was aware that the City of St. Paul did NOT have a tree preservation
policy. Mr. Paschke noted it was difficult to compare policies as they
varied so much based on other city-specific regulations, but admitted that
staff had found few policies as extensive as Roseville City Code. As
previously noted, Mr. Paschke advised that it was typical in a suburban
landscape to preserve tree coverage, and the goal was to find a spot for
trees being removed, and if not to require a fee of $500 per tree removed.
Mr. Paschke advised that the
city’s intent is to get ahead of the policy before accumulating funding in
the tree replacement fund for expending those dollars, and beyond just
finding appropriate locations around the city. Mr. Paschke noted that staff
was tasked with working with property owners to provide appropriate screening
on their development sites for adjacent property owners, and thereby target
the development area first. Mr. Paschke stated that one possibility that may
be of particular interest to the P WETC in expenditure of those funds would
be public improvement projects in the general area or within a 1/4 mile of
the subject site. If unable to get closer, Mr. Paschke noted that the question
then became where else in the community can we look to provide additional
tree coverage.
At the request of Member Lenz,
Mr. Paschke clarified that the replacement trees would be brand new and
typically would not involve relocating trees from one property to another.
Interim Community Development
Director Collins confirmed they would be brand new trees, with staff already
charged by city code to review the number of trees being removed and
available space to plant new trees as dictated by the City Council’s adopted
calculations. Ms. Collins noted that the goal was to provide the same amount
of coverage if possible; but when that is not an option, provision by the
developer of cash in lieu of tree replacement, or some other solution with
property owners is indicated.
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Paschke advised that the determination of $500 per tree for cash in lieu
of had been provided by the city’s contracted forester as a fair cost for a
tree of a certain diameter, and actually was on the lower end of the cost of
the tree plus labor, depending on species and other parameters. Mr. Paschke
advised that this was all part of the developer/property owner’s application
process and submission of a tree and landscaping plan as part of that application
package. Again, Mr. Paschke used a recent development, Cherrywood Point, as
an example of tree replacement calculations and plans, as part of the overall
development proposal.
Specific to the final sub-bullet
point (Determination of tree replacement funds on public lands within the
general area or one-quarter mile from the subject project site), Chair
Cihacek opined that seemed to him duplicative with the first point (retention
of tree fund expenditures within the general area of the subject development/redevelopment
site or one-quarter mile), and questioned if it was needed.
Member Lenz agreed that it seemed
duplicative.
While they appear similar, Mr.
Paschke clarified that one bullet point was pointed toward public land within
that quarter-mile, while the other was intended to address removal of trees
and their replacement elsewhere (e.g. sewer reconstruction needed through an
existing treed area).
Chair Cihacek suggested the need
for the policy to define “public improvement” and “public land;” but
reiterated his interpretation that the fourth bullet point may not be
necessary nor did it add anything to the policy.
Member Lenz expressed concern
that under this proposed language, a tree credit may only be applicable in
one area, while in another area of Roseville, with Emerald Ash Borer (EAB)
infestation and in need of trees, replacement trees may not be considered if
more than one-quarter mile away from the project site.
Chair Cihacek agreed, noting the
benefit of trees was citywide, and additional forest added while some is
removed, should be allowed in a larger area and not geographical restricted,
but available anywhere within Roseville city limits whether in public parks
or collaborative areas.
At the request of Member Wozniak
for staff’s rationale in specifying the language of the draft policy, Mr.
Paschke noted the goal was to keep tree replacement closer to the project
area, since those resources (trees) had been removed from that area and
should be kept in that same general area versus spreading them throughout the
city.
Member Lenz suggested the goal
could be replacement nearby, but allow for flexibility in a broader area if
indicated.
In defense of the PWETC’s
suggested broader replacement scope, Chair Cihacek noted that while adjacent properties
could be considered first, and then second any other public land; more to the
point was that there remained disparities in community-wide foresting. Chair
Cihacek noted these disparities may be due to past public works projects,
windstorms, disease or other removals that had yet to be replaced.
Therefore, if a mechanism was built into this policy that could provide an
opportunity to replace those lost trees, geographical limits should not be
stipulated, and may prove less onerous to the developer to meet the city’s
requirements.
Ms. Collins thanked the PWETC for
their good input.
From a personal perspective,
Member Seigler noted a discussion at last month’s PWETC meeting that the city
can dictate whether or not a lot is too small to build a larger garage based
on easements in place that may be larger than necessary or never intended for
use. Member Seigler noted that now this is yet another fine going into city
funds and dictating further restrictions. Member Seigler expressed concern
that the city was getting into the “fining” business.
Mr. Paschke clarified that the
city never got out of that “fining” business, but maybe simply didn’t
actively pursue it based on the ebb and flow of staff resources and/or the
complaint-driven code enforcement process. Using the city’s sign ordinance
as an example, Mr. Paschke noted that staff isn’t always available or
cognizant to inappropriate activity, but when observed, they may get fines.
Member Seigler noted that in a
community of Roseville’s age, a residential property owner should be able to,
at a minimum build a two-car garage to replace an inadequate one-car garage,
both from a practical standpoint for their use as well as for re-sale value
of the home.
Ms. Collins suggested that a
finer distinction between “fine” and “fee” may be needed. Ms. Collins
clarified that a “fine” is for violation of city code; while a “fee” such as
proposed in this case, and part of larger scale developments is intended to
encourage developers to make sure adequate space is available to replace
trees, and to encourage developers to look seriously where they may put
additional tree coverage as protection for adjacent property owners (e.g.
screening). Ms. Collins recognized the PWETC’s perception of the proposed
policy; however, she advised that staff was working with developers who were
very receptive to the city’s comprehensive plan guidelines, and the desire by
the community to reduce paved surfaces and keep things more green in
Roseville. As the city moves forward, Ms. Collins opined that she
anticipated most developers finding places for replacement trees versus
expending cash in lieu of planting trees.
Mr. Paschke reiterated the goal
was to have developers preserve as many trees on site as possible, with a
unique eye to preserve as many mature trees as possible and design around
them accordingly versus allowing clear cutting lots; with the tree
preservation and replacement in place to penalize any developers choosing to
remove larger, mature trees.
Chair Cihacek stated his support
for replacing good trees, but noted his preference for removing geographical
limitations and allow multiple places and options for replacing those trees
off-site as necessary.
Ms. Collins reported that the
Roseville Economic Development Authority (REDA) would be meeting tomorrow
evening, and at that time would be looking at options provided by their
consultant to ensure that Roseville’s programs were not too restrictive for
developers.
Member Heimerl asked how the
two-year timeframe had been determined, and ramifications for a developer if
they were unable to identify a replacement site within the timeframe or be
subject to the fee.
Mr. Paschke advised that the goal
was once the project is known and that fees will be necessary as part of
their tree restoration plan, staff would then determine how those dollars
would be used for completion within that two year timeframe.
Related to visibility of funds,
Member Heimerl suggested that by the city collecting fees in escrow for up to
two years, two years may be too long, and questioned why a decision couldn’t
be made sooner.
Mr. Paschke clarified that the
full two-years is not intended in all cases, but noted that sometimes there
may be significant time before a tree can be planted, depending on the
location, weather, season, species, etc. and this two-year timeframe was
intended to allow some flexibility.
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Paschke and Ms. Collins advised that the two-year clock started upon the
City Council’s approval of a final plat.
Specific to tree installation,
Chair Cihacek asked if it was the intent that the city or a contractor
replaces the tree, or if the city would assist the developer in finding a
contractor to do the work.
Mr. Paschke stated that this was
a good point, and it may depend on whether the city could find bidders or if
a developer hired a contractor to plant the trees; with Ms. Collins further
clarifying that it would depend on the scope of the project and number of
trees to be planted.
Member Seigler asked staff for an
example of public lands with tree shortages.
Mr. Paschke advised that he was
unable to accurately identify those sites immediately tonight, but noted that
trees were planted in city parks on an annual basis, whether due to disease,
replacement of dead trees, or need for additional trees.
Ms. Collins noted that staff’s
next stop would be at the Parks & Recreation Commission, opining this
would be a good question for them to address and to identify their priorities
for trees on public lands.
Chair Cihacek asked the city’s
Environmental Engineer Ryan Johnson how this would roll into stormwater
management or remediation for the city, and support for impact on this
proposed policy.
Environmental Engineer Johnson
responded that basically trees fell into a stormwater best management
practices (BMP) category, and confirmed that a canopy of mature trees reduced
rain volume flow throughout the community. Mr. Johnson noted that such BMPs
could be incorporated into stormwater projects as another option to treat
water and slow down volume since only so much water could be stored via other
options. As additional options are considered, such as tree canopies, Mr.
Johnson admitted there would be considerable benefit to keeping or adding
trees in specific areas throughout the community. As an example, Mr. Johnson
referenced the wetland replacement on Victoria north of Roselawn with trees
added recently in this sensitive area adjacent to a wetland, and those trees
adding a secondary benefit. From an engineering and environmental
perspective, Mr. Johnson stated “trees are a good thing.”
On behalf of the City Council and
city staff, Ms. Collins thanked the PWETC for their feedback on this draft
policy.
- MS4 Public Hearing
At approximately 7:10 p.m., Chair
Cihacek opened and closed the public hearing for the purpose of receiving
public comment regarding the City’s stormwater pollution prevention program
(SWPPP), with no one appearing to speak for or against.
Presentation
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) 2015 Annual Report for Municipal Separate Storm
sewer System (MS4) by City Environmental Engineer Ryan Johnson
As detailed in the staff report
and related attachments, Mr. Johnson provided an overview of the city’s
management of stormwater discharge into public waters in Roseville and the
region. Mr. Johnson reviewed various outreach and educational efforts and
best management practices (BMPs) over the last year and those proposed moving
forward.
Specific to Chair Cihacek’s
question regarding the dredging costs of $24,000 at the stormwater pond
(Byerly’s Pond), and associated cost savings available, Mr. Johnson reviewed
the deterioration of the pond over time, as part of the city’s
infrastructure. Mr. Johnson noted water was not draining off Lincoln Drive,
with the street infrastructure therefore inundated with water, causing those
concrete pipes continuously under water to break down and need replaced. If
the ponds do not function as intended, and sediment goes out onto County Road
C, and Ramsey County ultimately inspects that area, Mr. Johnson advised that
they would require the city to clean the pond at their timing. Mr. Johnson
further noted that the sediment could eventually flow into Bennett Lake, a
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protected wetland. Overall, Mr.
Johnson noted the benefit was to do the cleaning now, and return the function
to its intended status.
Chair Cihacek questioned why
cattails were considered bad in ponds or to its ecosystem; and if and when
prairie grass or other vegetation is designed specifically for other water
retention areas or other functions.
Mr. Johnson responded that he
considered vegetation not only to treat stormwater, but also to aid natural
habitat, adding additional values versus having a simple pond. Mr. Johnson
noted this provided aesthetic appeal, as well as insect, frog and bird
habitat versus turf grass. Relative to cattails, Mr. Johnson stated he
considered them fine around the edges but not in the middle of a drainage
pond indicating to him that the pond has reached a point that it needs
cleaning out. Mr. Johnson noted their growth meant stormwater retention was
slowing down and the pond was not functioning as intended from a drainage
aspect.
At the prompting of Mr.
Freihammer, Mr. Johnson confirmed that native plants were planted on this
site, using wetland seeds specifically specified by the Minnesota Department
of Transportation (MnDOT) for native plantings and short grass prairie, with
turf grass above that.
Mr. Freihammer noted that this
dredging would benefit the city cost-wise in the future by requiring less
maintenance of the underground pipes on Lincoln Drive that had always been
hard to maintain as they were submerged in water.
Member Wozniak asked the last
time this pond had been cleaned out and where the sediment was coming from.
Mr. Ryan advised that the pond
was installed in the 1970’s and he had been unable to determine if there had
been any subsequent maintenance on it. As for the origin of the sediment,
Mr. Ryan advised that it came primarily from private parking lots and public
streets, and noted the purpose of the ponds was to capture the sediment
before it reached the wetland. However, Mr. Johnson noted the need for a
more accelerated maintenance program for this type of pond or infiltration
system than once every 40 years.
Mr. Freihammer noted that in the
past more sand was used for ice maintenance during the winter than compared
to today on parking lots and/or streets, but noted sediment from grass
clippings also impacted those ponds. Mr. Freihammer noted that there were
considerable impervious surfaces in this area; and agreed that 40 years was a
long time from installation to follow-up maintenance.
Member Wozniak asked if there was
any cost contribution by adjacent property owners for such maintenance.
Mr. Johnson responded that this
was cit land and it had been originally platted this way, including any
runoff from the Byerly’s parking lot. Mr. Johnson noted that Byerly’s
maintained their catch basins and piping located within their parking lot,
but as with all similar public areas, the city was responsible for public
ponds.
As with all stormwater management
throughout the city, Mr. Freihammer clarified that all city taxpayers,
through the city’s stormwater utility fee, paid for that management, and
under current city code, there was no direct assessment to adjacent
properties, since the flow was considered public water.
Member Seigler questioned if the
pond should be deeper and should have been excavated more.
Mr. Ryan noted there would have
been extra volume available as a result, and advised that a considerable
amount of additional sediment could have been removed, allowing more gain in
area over the next ten years. However, Mr. Johnson advised that while it may
help in some instances to dredge deeper, in some cases, as with this site,
there were site constraints defining what could be accomplished.
At the request of Member Seigler,
Mr. Johnson stated that in this pond, the management involved water
evaporation versus infiltration due to the heavy soils in this area.
Member Lenz questioned if this
created a breeding ground for mosquitoes.
Mr. Johnson noted that there was
lots of open water in Roseville, but since insects fed off mosquitoes, this
situation was part of the overall ecosystem, and not like having standing
water in a tire in a yard.
With the city changes in ice control methods over time, Member Wozniak asked
if there were restrictions for private property owners as well.
Mr. Johnson advised that private
property owners could use their choice for keeping their parking lots safe,
noting that they were typically more concerned with liability and safety
issues of their clientele rather than whether or not they were using too much
sand or salt.
Mr. Freihammer noted that a lot
had changed over time with many of those businesses using more salt versus
sand, as they have found it more effective and causing less tracking into
their establishments.
Chair Cihacek noted this caused a
whole different problem, that of nitrates loading in water bodies; and should
become part of the city’s efforts going forward for business and resident
choices in ice control.
Mr. Johnson confirmed that, as
part of the MS4 reporting, the city’s intent for one educational piece was to
alert citizens and business owners to the effects of what they used on their
lots and impacts to local water resources. By making them aware of it and
the subsequent cost to them, Mr. Johnson expressed his hope that this would
prompt them to use less or use these materials more wisely once, especially
if and when a business owner found this was cutting into their profits
through additional utility fees and infrastructure costs. With the
significant number of private businesses and their stormwater impacts, Mr.
Johnson advised that staff was very interested in educating them. Mr.
Johnson noted that these efforts were ongoing and frequent in various
communication efforts, with Public Works Department staff continually
bringing things to the City’s Communication Department for inclusion in email
blasts and city newsletters rather than the cost for doing so specifically
to-date in sending individual mailings. Mr. Johnson advised that the intent
was to hopefully reach a broader scale.
At the request of Member Wozniak,
Mr. Johnson advised that staff anticipated sending letters out this fall, and
agreed to copy the PWETC on the letter for their information and feedback.
In the type of material being
removed, Mr. Johnson reported that so far, the city had not encountered a
huge cost with most materials classified as Type 1 or Type 2, and not the
contaminated Type 3 where excavation and disposal costs double do to it being
classified as hazardous waste. Mr. Johnson noted this is always an unknown
going into a maintenance project until a testing of the materials removed had
been done, and greatly impacting annual construction plans and maintenance.
Mr. Johnson advised that the city was proposing $100,000 annually going
forward to achieve protection of its key resources, specifically around Lake
McCarrons and Lake Owasso.
Member Lenz asked if Shoreview
was as aggressive as Roseville with this maintenance, noting that the City of
Roseville was the recipient of a lot of sediment coming through the system
from Shoreview.
Mr. Johnson opined that they are
as aggressive, and mentioned several joint cost-share projects undertaken by
the Cities of Shoreview and Roseville (Valley Park), noting the great
partnership achieved to-date.
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Johnson reported on cost-share opportunities with other adjacent
communities and how proactive the cooperative efforts had proven, since the
results benefit all communities in the region. Especially of note, Mr.
Johnson noted those communities appreciating Roseville taking the initial
lead on the specifications and work with contractors, with their only role to
chip in cost-share for the project, making it much more amenable for those
other communities, while they still received credit for stormwater
maintenance on their individual MS4’s as well.
As part of his presentation, Mr.
Johnson reviewed various BMPs in 2015 and impacts for stormwater treatment,
costs related to each, and favorable results for public and private property
in reducing drainage.
Mr. Johnson concluded his
presentation by addressing minimum control measures and their specific costs
going forward; MS4 work, OSHA training and right-to-know training for all
applicable staff citywide; all totaling approximately $536,000 annually for
this MS4-related work.
Mr. Johnson encouraged Roseville
residents and business owners to consult the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) website for additional information on efforts they could take
to protect stormwater. Mr. Johnson confirmed that references and links were
included in city communication efforts for interested parties to receive more
detailed information and to follow-up efforts.
In conclusion, Mr. Johnson
reported on the very successful semi-annual clean-up day in Roseville
recently held. Mr. Johnson advised that this continued to be a very popular
service for residents, including shredding day – a fan favorite – with seven
tons shredded in each of the last two years at the City Hall parking lot and
free of charge for Roseville residents.
- City Council Joint Meeting Agenda
Mr. Freihammer provided last
year’s discussion items for reference, and proposed topics for this year’s
joint meeting between the PWETC and City Council, scheduled for June 20,
2016.
Activities and Accomplishments
Chair Cihacek noted the PWETC’s
discussion and consideration of water service issues, including a possible
shared risk plan offered by a private vendor and considerable time taken as
requested by the City Council, but ultimately denied by the City Council.
Chair Cihacek suggested it may be
incumbent for the PWETC to ask the City Council about several of those
situations, where the PWETC offered a solution, but the City Council had
subsequently chosen to deny the recommendation. Chair Cihacek questioned if
there was a more effective or efficient way of moving forward with City
Council charges to the PWETC.
Member Heimerl noted the
considerable time spent by the PWETC on solar issues, solar gardens and other
projects. Member Heimerl opined that those remained important issues, even
though still pending, including panels installed on the ice arena. Member
Heimerl expressed his interest in the PWETC providing further guidance yet
this year.
Mr. Johnson reported that staff
continued to work with several solar developers looking at the City Hall
campus, based on roof age, structural make-up, and comparisons with the
problematic roof structure of the skating center that slowed down that
project. Mr. Johnson reported that staff was still awaiting proposals for
that skating center project, and remained open to the potential, with ongoing
work with the Metropolitan Council and developer to finalize specific numbers
on what the City of Roseville could save and available kilowatt hours it
could purchase. Mr. Johnson noted it was a slow process, but would
eventually save the city money, and everyone understood it was the right
thing to do while not wanting to jump in and then find out only a minimal
amount of annual savings could be found. Mr. Johnson advised that once the
proposals came back, staff would bring them to the PWETC.
As far as the OVAL installation,
Mr. Johnson advised this remained part of the overall picture depending on
the developer(s) and involving the potential consideration of other buildings
on the city campus and the viability of the final project. Mr. Johnson
anticipated additional information available in June or July of this year.
Other activities undertaken by
the PWETC included reviewing and preparing the Recycling RFP; policy issues
on plumbing issues; utility rate proposals; tree preservation and replacement
policy; sump pumps; sanitary sewer questions; and other reaction to other
proposed policy updates.
Member Trainor noted the PWETC’s
frequent field trips as another accomplishment; with Member Lenz suggesting
the City Council do the same in reviewing community needs or concerns.
2016 Work Plan Items
Mr. Freihammer noted some of
these items, including transit accessibility (e.g. pedestrian and bicycle
paths) would tie into the comprehensive plan update process over the next
year. Mr. Cihacek noted that this effort, giving consideration to
appropriate transit usage to inform the Metropolitan Council, would take up a
considerable amount of time over the next year, including as the A-Line bus rapid
transit (BRT) passenger numbers and customer satisfaction was considered.
Mr. Freihammer noted that the City of Roseville and its riders had lost a lot
of bus lines when the Green Line went in, creating less accessible options
for many residents. Mr. Freihammer noted that the transportation aspects
would look at bike paths and connections to other communities as well,
including more sidewalks or connecting sidewalks to make Roseville
pedestrian-friendly.
Questions or Concerns for the
City Council
·
Rights-of-way, setback, lot usage and long-term lack of use of
some easements and whether some of those not being used for a considerable
amount of time may be holding back potential household improvements.
Member Seigler asked that staff,
including Public Works Director Culver with input from the Planning
Commission, return with more formal information on this issue, including how
calculations are determined.
·
Mr. Freihammer advised that two additional ordinances would be
coming forward for PWETC discussion: sump pump clarifications as they related
to the Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) and suggested language revisions
from staff and for PWETC review; and also an ordinance related to private
hydrants and creation of an ordinance addressing their installation and maintenance.
·
Recycling Components: Chair Cihacek suggested that the City
Council provide more comprehensive direction related to other recycling
components, whether to increase amounts or address smaller elements of
curbside collection (e.g. plastic bag recycling, organics, etc.) to determine
if the City Council wants that to be part of the PWETC work plan for the next
year.
Discussion ensued regarding
processing costs for plastic bags at MRF’s; the City of Minneapolis’ ban on
plastic bags starting next year; and Mr. Johnson reporting that he has seen
no involvement from other communities or vendors in curbside recycling of
plastic bags; and whether or not the City of Roseville should provide this as
a city-specific service beyond the vendor services.
General Comments
Chair Cihacek noted the
considerable time needed over the next year for the normal work items under
the PWETC charge.
Member Lenz also noted the
considerable time required with the Recycling RFP; with Member Wozniak noting
future discussion on organics as part of that.
Member Seigler requested a report
from staff on leaf collection follow-up and additional public outreach needed
going forward.
Member Lenz requested additional
consideration of the recycling potential for plastic bags.
Member Wozniak noted another
recommendation of the PWETC denied by the City Council was for consideration
of organized trash collection.
In jest, Chair Cihacek observed
that the PWETC was being very productive, but the City Council was apparently
not matching its level of productivity.
Member Seigler excused himself from the meeting at
approximately 8:02 p.m.
Regarding the process and
protocol for the joint meeting, Chair Cihacek advised that, as chairperson,
he would represent the PWETC at the table, with assistance from Public Works
Director Culver, in response to questions or comments of the City Council.
- Public Works City Code Updates
Mr. Freihammer provided a brief
preliminary summary of proposed ordinance updates for sump pumps and private
hydrants, as detailed in the staff report and attachments and as previously
noted in the upcoming PWETC work plan.
Mr. Freihammer referred to the
draft ordinance revisions as provided (Attachment A).
At the request of Member Trainor,
Mr. Freihammer confirmed that all red highlighted areas represented new
language to the current code; with the intent that it would ensure the city
code allowed for staff enforcement versus relying on a neighbor to neighbor
dispute scenario.
Sump Pumps
At the request of Chair Cihacek,
Mr. Freihammer advised that the proposed language for I & I conformed to
stormwater staying on the subject property and not flowing to adjacent
properties, and probably wouldn’t change what most people did as a common and
typical practice, with few exceptions.
At the request of Member Lenz,
this included not being able to discharge stormwater runoff directly into a
stormwater pond, but on public rights-or-way.
Member Heimerl noted that the
city pursued people more aggressively for violation of other city code, and
questioned why not be more aggressive with sump pump discharges as well.
Mr. Freihammer responded that while it depended on how aggressive the city
wanted to be, it involved a general cost to the city for those doing so
versus those not discharging, since the city and its utility users ended up
paying for treatment of that water at a considerable expense. Mr. Freihammer
suggested that be a discussion point going forward, noting there are two
types of sump pumps, those dumping into a floor drain or sink, and also those
with foundation drains installed when the home was build and plumbed for
discharging directly into the sanitary sewer system. Therefore, Mr.
Freihammer suggested two different kinds of violations that needed identified
through inspection programs, during building or other permit inspections, and
potential requirement that those former systems be disconnected with a
related timeframe to do so. However, Mr. Freihammer noted that depending on
their type of installation, some would be easier and less costly to do than
others.
Member Heimerl noted that some
people now purchasing homes, or those living in homes built in the 1950’s may
not even be aware of the situation; and suggested a grace period for new
owners with homes incorrectly plumbed to bring them into compliance. Member
Heimerl opined that at a minimum this would at least bring to their attention
that they were currently violating city code; and create a more friendly way
to work with residents versus having them continue to violate code,
especially when they may not know they’re doing so. Member Heimerl spoke in
support of that as a better approach to differentiate those knowingly
violating city code and those not knowing they’re doing so; and therefore
make the program more voluntary in nature.
Chair Cihacek noted the proof of
sale concept that required anyone selling a home to fix the issue for new
residents, with title transition triggering the home be brought up-to-date
with city code.
Mr. Freihammer noted this would
be a point of discussion for the future as to what triggered or tied into
municipal code, and a timeframe for actively enforcing it, with the ultimate
goal for residents to get it corrected as soon as possible.
Private Hydrants
Mr. Freihammer reported that
there were no requirements at this point, with private hydrants built as part
of a private development under requirements of the city and fire department,
with the goal to make sure they were working if and when needed, but no
records of that maintenance. Mr. Freihammer advised that the city maintained
all city-owned hydrants and kept records of their repair and periodic
pressure testing, but there was no code in place to address private
hydrants. According to the city’s fire code, all hydrants are to be tested
annually for pressure and flow and operation (valves.); and noted by Mr.
Freihammer, the city needs to know of this maintenance and require adherence
to those requirements.
Therefore, Mr. Freihammer noted
the outline in the proposed ordinance for all private hydrants to be
inspected and tested at least once/year; which could be done by the city with
a related fee as part of its fee schedule; or the property owners could do so
by hiring their own licensed company and submit required records to the city
with those inspection records maintained and available for the city. If
repairs are needed, Mr. Freihammer noted that the property owner could
coordinate them or have the city complete repairs and assess them for those
repair costs.
Discussion ensued regarding the
number of private hydrants on private or residential lots on private roads
citywide; those on public land at shopping centers typically located at the
back of the property with a private water main and hydrant system; with the annual
inspection similar to other required annual inspections (e.g. elevators in
multi-story buildings).
Member Wozniak questioned the
language on Attachment A, page 11, in the last paragraph of the highlighted
area, with inspection form complying with fire code requirements.
Mr. Freihammer advised that staff
would work with the fire department on specific language, but the compliance
portion would probably be administered by the public works department to
verify which hydrants were on private or public land, with all built to the
same standard, but identified by map as to their designation.
Further discussion ensued as to
whether or not that designation is available through GIS mapping; and the
need to verify private hydrants and their locations as part of the update
during this ordinance process. Mr. Freihammer estimated there may be 500 or
more private hydrants throughout the community.
- Possible Items for Next Meeting – June 28, 2016
·
Review Joint City Council/PWETC Meeting
·
Stormwater Credit Impact Fund Update
·
Recycling RFP Update/Presentation of Scores and Pricing
Chair Cihacek asked staff to
allow one hour for this agenda item
·
Pedestrian Connections and Bike Lanes on Lexington Avenue
Chair Cihacek asked staff to
provide an update on whether or not there was a dedicated bike lane intended
for Lexington Avenue, and if so why it was not marked as such. Chair Cihacek
noted there may be other areas citywide as well that should be part of
broader upcoming transit discussions.
- Adjourn
Member Lenz moved, Member Wozniak
seconded, adjournment of the PWETC at approximately 8:25 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
|