|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 6:30 p.m.
- Introduction / Call Roll
Vice Chair
Lenz called the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and at her request,
Public Works Director Marc Culver called the roll.
Present: Vice Chair Sarah Brodt Lenz; and Members Joe
Wozniak, John Heimerl, Kody Thurnau, and Thomas Trainor
Absent: Chair Brian Cihacek and Member Duane Seigler
Staff Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver;
- Public Comments
None.
- Approval of July 26, 2016
Meeting Minutes
Comments
and corrections to draft minutes had been submitted by PWETC commissioners
prior to tonight?s meeting and those revisions incorporated into the draft
presented in meeting materials.
Public Works
Director Culver briefly summarized minor corrections received from
Commissioner Wozniak to-date that will be incorporated into the draft meeting
minutes.
Corrections
·
Page 1, line 2 (Lenz)
Typographical Correction ? Correct Chair of meeting
Member Wozniak
moved, Member Thurnau seconded, approval of the July 26, 2016 meeting minutes
as amended.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
- Communication Items
Public Works
Director Culver provided additional comments and a brief review and update on
projects and maintenance activities listed in the staff report dated August
23, 2016.
Member Wozniak
referenced a recent email between staff and PWETC commissioners regarding
recycling in parks, as an email response to Chair Cihacek, but not all
commissioners had received the emails.
At the request
of Vice Chair Lenz regarding the email context, Member Wozniak reported that
his colleague and municipal contact for Ramsey County had informed him that
the unit price in the Eureka recycling contract for pulling containers from
park locations at $10/month/container was excessive compared to that of the
City of Bloomington?s vendor contract at $3/container/month. Member Wozniak
calculated that at 200 containers over a nine-month period, the cost for that
service would exceed $180,000 for weekly service; noting that his colleague
had questioned the City of Roseville?s rationale in agreeing to pay that
amount.
Mr. Culver
clarified that there was some miscommunication involved; but noted it had
become clear during staff negotiations with Eureka on a new contract, that
they and apparently all vendors had misinterpreted the city?s intent for
monthly charge for carts, which the city had not been aware of before these
contract negotiations with Eureka. Mr. Culver advised that the error in
interpretation involved whether the cost was per month or every time a cart
was pulled. Mr. Culver clarified that the actual cost was $10 per pull per
month.
Member Wozniak
recognized that he had been mistaken, as he thought it was $10 per cart per
month; but noted that was still high compared to the City of Bloomington rate
of $3.
Mr. Culver
advised the Eureka contract cost was closer to $9, and not all pick-ups would
be weekly, but some-bi-weekly depending on their location and amount of use
for that park and/or trail. Mr. Culver noted input had been and would
continue to be received from the City Council, Parks & Recreation staff
and their advisory commission to address concerns voiced about retrieving
recycling bins remotely with a vehicle with arm attachment, the way the
recycling contractors prefer. However, Mr. Culver advised that city staff
had indicated they were not going to place 200 containers on the trails all
at once at least to start, as they would be experimenting with various
options.
At this point,
Mr. Culver advised that city staff and Eureka were negotiating for an initial
roll out on trails of 10-20 carts. However, Mr. Culver noted this created a
different cost for Eureka as they needed to change some of their pricing
schemes, originally based on quantity, some of those dollars intended for
their capital purchase of smaller vehicles for those trails. Mr. Culver
advised that discussions would continue, but stated staff expected a slight
increase to their cost to provide recycling to parks compared to what was
previously shown to the PWETC and City Council. Mr. Culver advised that
those actual and final costs would be available to the City Council before
they approved the final contract after negotiations. Mr. Culver noted staff
would continue to strongly advocate for walk-up service to park buildings and
parking lot service; and then continue to work with the Parks &
Recreation staff and commission to determine how best to begin that
experimental or pilot program with carts and their locations. Mr. Culver
noted this may or may not involve modifying how they were initially planned
with the contractor.
Member Wozniak
recalled when bids were first discussed by the PWETC, there appeared to be
some apprehension from Parks & Recreation Department staff in gathering
containers at a central collection point, asking if they were now more open
to that process.
Mr. Culver
reported that wasn?t necessarily the situation, but reiterated those were
ongoing discussions given changes and cost differences realized at this point
in the negotiations. Mr. Culver advised that ultimately it would be a
recommendation by Parks & Recreation staff and advisory commission, and
decision-making by the City Council as to the importance of recycling in
parks.
In response to
Member Wozniak?s review of the Ramsey County practice of co-locating trash and
recycling containers, Mr. Culver advised that the city currently didn?t have
staff or resources to empty both types of containers due to the need to keep
bags separated by whether garbage or recycling materials; but deferred more
detailed comment to the Parks & Recreation Department.
Member Wozniak
opined that the difference between $3 and $10 per pull could purchase a truck
or more staff for the city.
Mr. Culver
responded that this was all part of ongoing discussions with the Parks &
Recreation Department as experiments were initiated to expand recycling in
city parks.
On another
note, while he wasn?t overly familiar with new city park buildings, Member
Wozniak noted he understood they were very nice. However, referencing
comments from Jean Buckley, Member Wozniak reported that at least one of the
new buildings didn?t have any recycling containers; and from the perspective
of the PWETC, this caused him concern.
Mr. Culver
agreed that the parks buildings were absolutely beautiful; and offered to
refer those environmental concerns of the PWETC to the Parks & Recreation
Department and suggested the PWETC consider a formal recommendation to pass
on to them regarding their feelings. Mr. Culver reported that he was at one
park facility earlier this year, and it did not have a recycling container,
but noted he was unsure if that was still the same situation today. Once the
city began offering walk-up service to buildings and bins located adjacent to
park buildings for Eureka Recycling to retrieve and empty, Mr. Culver opined
the logistics would be easier for each and every park facility and building.
Member Wozniak
reminded Mr. Culver that Ramsey County would pay 100% of recycling container
costs for city park buildings; one of their efforts to remove barriers to
enable recycling countywide.
Mr. Culver
stated he was very excited about working out those details within the new
contractor and available options with a better pricing scheme, including
opportunities to increase recycling in parks in general. If not before
then, Mr. Culver stated he anticipated significant strides to be made on
those efforts in January of 2017 when the new contract goes into effect.
Motion
Member Wozniak
moved, Member Heimerl seconded, asking the Parks & Recreation Commission
to initiate steps to increase and improve recycling in all city park
buildings as soon as possible.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
Vice Chair
Lenz reported on her attendance at the SE Roseville community meeting for the
Larpenteur Avenue and Rice Street area and outreach held last month. Vice
Chair Lenz opined it was the best session she?d ever attended, with the
cities of Maplewood, St. Paul and Roseville well-represented, as well as
Ramsey County. Vice Chair Lenz noted each municipality was able to provide
their individual city perspectives and input; and with no consultants
providing any visual plans, small groups were able to suggest some ideas and
the meeting open to numerous options and addressing problem areas and good
options to allow coordination of projects. Vice Chair Lenz stated she found
it interesting that the general response was that there was no desire for
?more senior housing? in the area. Overall, Vice Chair Lenz stated she found
it an excellent experience.
Mr. Culver
reported he?d heard similar feedback from those attending, including staff
and residents; with resulting excitement about the meeting and follow-up from
it that continued for that area. Mr. Culver further reported that the City
of Roseville Police Department was working with other Police Departments on
the feasibility of a satellite office in that area; and also noted the city
had recently purchased land immediately west of this area adjacent to
apartment buildings having significant refugee populations, for a mini park.
Mr. Culver agreed that there was considerable excitement about making
positive changes in the area; and hoped the momentum would continue in this
multi-jurisdictional area and that the concerted effort would continue.
Member Wozniak
reported on recycling organics as an option for Roseville, but the closest
compost site serving Roseville being located in Arden Hills and that site not
accepting compost. Member Wozniak reported on a recently opened organics
recycling site near Como Park behind the Hill-Murray fields. Member Wozniak
advised that Ramsey County continued to look for additional sites in
cooperation with area cities; and hoped once organized, Roseville may be one
of those cities expressing interested in being considered.
Mr. Culver
suggested that was a good discussion topic for a future PWETC meeting to make
a recommendation to staff and the City Council, depending on potential costs
involved.
- Comprehensive Surface
Water Management Plan Update Introduction
Mr. Culver
reviewed the request for proposals (RFP) recently finalized, with S.E.H.
winning the contract for updating the City of Roseville?s Comprehensive
Surface Water Management Plan (CSWP), as part of the overall Metropolitan
Council?s Comprehensive Plan Update. Mr. Culver noted S.E.H. had also
updated the plan most recently in 2013.
Mr. Culver
introduced Mr. Ron Leaf, PE, Principal and Project Manager and Ms. Rebecca
Nestingen, PE, CFM, S.E.H. Lead Water Resources Engineer to present an
overview of the update and outline the process and schedule, including the
PWETC?s role.
Ms. Nestingen
provided a history of the original plan dated 1990, and subsequent updates in
2003 and 2013, including major items and changes from one plan to the next as
major items were addressed and progress made in the City of Roseville
regarding water resource issues, primarily focusing on sustainability.
Ms. Nestingen
noted while most of the work would occur during the remainder of 2016 and
early 2017, this update was considered a 2017 update for adoption at that
time. Ms. Nestingen reported on plans to incorporate in this latest update,
including new implementation ideas, recognition of innovations made to-date,
and updating goals and policies and the issues assessment. Ms. Nestingen
noted this would also involve aligning the city?s plan with the three
watershed districts as they went through a similar update of their respective
plans.
In addition to
those issues identified in the last update, Mr. Leaf noted continual updating
of more frequent large storm events and their ramifications.
Ms. Nestingen
reviewed the public input process used in the past, even though with
disappointing results, and innovations to involve newer technologies,
including electronic survey and the Speak Up! Roseville.org website as
tools. Ms. Nestingen noted public open houses would be coordinated with the
broader comprehensive plan update process, and reviewed public input
opportunities before the PWETC as well.
Mr. Leaf
agreed any meaningful public input in the 2013 update was disappointing, even
though lake associations had been specifically invited to share their input.
Of those six residents showing up at the open house opportunity, Mr. Leaf
noted two were actually from the same household. Therefore, Mr. Leaf advised
different opportunities were need to get that interaction, whether via
web-based tools or other areas consistent with what the city was already
doing. Mr. Leaf asked for PWETC input to get that citizen involvement during
the process.
Ms. Nestingen
reviewed the seven goals in the current plan and briefly reviewed each goal
statements, along with suggestions for those needing updated, revised, added
to or removed from the next update; also seeking input from the PWETC.
As the PWETC
reviewed the plan for their input, Mr. Leaf noted that there were a number of
policies under each goal category with more specificity as per city
intentions for consistency with the desires for the city and serving to set
the direction for the plan as a whole.
Ms. Nestingen reviewed the current 2013 plan issues assessment to review
localized flooding or drainage issues in Roseville, water quality
impairments, operations and maintenance, education, outreach and
collaboration.
Member Wozniak
noted he didn?t see the Fairview Avenue drainage area in the plan.
Mr. Culver
clarified that the broader area for improvements encompassing Fairview Avenue
and Highway 36 was provided. Mr. Culver noted he had been interviewed
earlier today by Channel 5 News about that specific intersection. Mr. Culver
noted the need to divert water upstream of that area to reduce rate flow and
move storage from that intersection elsewhere, all long-term solutions.
Mr. Leaf
advised that over the 10-year term of the plan there would be a considerable
range of opportunities to address issues, including on the ground
implementation, stormwater improvements, ponds, and studies to analyze the
most cost-effective, long-term plans both physically as well as operationally
(e.g. street sweeping variables and frequency).
Ms. Nestingen
noted part of the public involvement process would include examples of public
concern heard most frequently, especially from those living on lakeshores.
Mr. Leaf noted
another item heard more frequently was the invasive or nuisance vegetation
infestations, which hadn?t even been the radar for the last ten-year plan.
However, Mr. Leaf reported this had been a banner year for vegetation growth.
Mr. Culver
agreed that those comments were frequently fielded by city staff as well.
As part of
this plan update process, Ms. Nestingen reviewed the projected schedule
between now and May of 2017 when adoption of the plan by the City Council has
been scheduled. Ms. Nestingen advised that the process would include three
meetings of the PWETC to discuss the plan updates proposed for tonight, again
on October 25, 2016, and on January 24, 2017 at which time development of the
draft plan should be available, and then revised as a second draft by
mid-February; and subsequent agency approval in April of 2017 (e.g. watershed
districts and Metropolitan Council); and then City Council adoption in May as
noted. Ms. Nestingen advised that the revised plan would then be
incorporated into the city?s larger comprehensive plan update.
Ms. Nestingen
asked that, as part of the PWETC tasks for meeting number two, members review
the current 2013 goals/policies and issues assessment; and then provide
feedback to city staff by October 18th to allow that feedback to
be disseminated to all PWETC members for discussion at the October 25th
PWETC meeting.
Member Heimerl
asked if getting feedback from residents was tied to that, and whether the
PWETC would be privy to that public feedback prior to the October 25th
meeting.
Ms. Nestingen
advised that they could provide a summary of comments to the PWETC as it
considered priorities, depending on the timing of public involvement and open
houses and how it aligns with the broader comprehensive plan.
Member Heimerl
stated he would find it personally helpful in providing his feedback and
driving the PWETC?s focus.
Mr. Leaf
advised that, before public comments were sought, a list of questions needed
to be developed that the public was being asked to comment on. Mr. Leaf
stated his firm would work with staff to put that list together; and if
individual PWETC members had things on their lists to ask, he asked that they
provide them to staff at their earliest convenience to include in the mix of
suggestions. Mr. Leaf noted there were only so many questions or areas of
focus for consideration.
Member Thurnau
suggested a targeted outreach, such as NextDoor.com that may reach Lake
Owasso residents or their association versus other areas in the city. Member
Thurnau noted the variables for residents living on a lake versus citywide
surface water issues throughout the community that were entirely different.
Mr. Culver
questioned the city?s involvement with input for NextDoor.com and intentional
restrictions in place for posting of agencies to retain the
neighbor-to-neighbor format of that website and its intent. While he loved
the idea and noted the city occasionally responded to some posts on the
website, Mr. Culver suggested relying on other residents if they wanted to
start up that discussion.
In a recent
Burnsville survey, Mr. Leaf noted the question was asked if a resident was a
lake shore resident or not; and suggested such a filter could be used for
Roseville as well, allowing their concerns to be sorted.
Ms. Nestingen
noted she had added ?Speak Up! Roseville? as an engagement tool, and
suggested that maybe could link to NextDoor.com.
Mr. Culver
agreed with that idea; but also noted the city?s current registration isn?t
tremendous, and even though growing, he hoped discussions such as this might
prompt more communitywide interest in that website.
Member Wozniak
suggested having a question whether people were willing to pay for improved
water quality as a goal for sustainability, whether about the environment,
life cycle or cost.
Mr. Culver
suggested there are parallel interpretations of sustainability, and financial
sustainability affected if and how the stormwater system was maintained and
whether or not the city was being environmentally sustainable for its impacts
to the environment.
Mr. Leaf
referenced the goal statement section of that specific goal for that
clarification.
Mr. Culver
noted the more water bodies drained will continue to impact the total maximum
load (TML) limits; and requiring collaborative steps to address those
pollutants, related efforts and projects to reduce those levels leaving the
city.
Member Wozniak
noted his confusion with the MS4 items compared to the surface water
management plan and how those two interacted.
Mr. Leaf
provided a quick snapshot of the MS4 program, a state regulatory program
under the city?s NDPES permit focused on water quality and what needs to
happen for projects and operations within the city. While there is some
overlap, Mr. Leaf clarified that this surface water management plan is part
water quality, and part water quantity addressing flooding and other water
resource-related issues beyond the simple water quality component.
Member Thurnau
noted that in order for him to identify things in the 2013 plan that needed
to move forward or things he?d like to see altered of changed in the old
plan, it would be helpful for him to see projects completed since 2013 to
present; and asked that the information be upfront versus in the back of the
plan. Member Thurnau opined this would allow f more linear look for him and
the public in seeing goals and action plans going forward. Member Thurnau
stated another issue he wanted to dig into further was groundwater and
pulling down aquifers with lawn use and other water uses. Member Thurnau recognized
the city?s use of St. Paul Regional Water Service surface water recourses,
but suggested residents be provided action items for them to consider that
would impact the more regional goals.
Mr. Culver
referenced a third, less comprehensive document beyond this surface water
management plan and the MS4 documents, identified as the Water Supply and
Distribution Plan update due by year-end, but having to do with
conservation. Mr. Culver clarified the city has no wells pumping from
aquifers, and while St. Paul Regional Water Service uses some, they primarily
used surface water for distribution. However, Mr. Culver alerted the PWETC
that they would be discussing that third document next month as well.
Mr. Leaf noted
that document tied into where infiltration projects would be most effective
and most sensitive to ground water areas.
Member Thurnau
urged educational components of the plan and public meetings to get community
interest and provide leverage by alerting them to what they were drinking and
where the water came from, causing them to be more aware of impacts to that
water resource.
Mr. Leaf duly
noted those suggestions; advising the intent was to get the project page up
and running on the city?s website along with contact information.
Mr. Culver announced the birth
of a new baby for Chair Cihacek and his family this morning, with all
offering their congratulations.
- I-35W Managed Lane Project
Information
I-35W
Managed Lane Project Information
Mr. Culver
summarized the proposed project for a managed lane (MnPASS lane) on I-35W
between County Road C in Roseville and Lexington Avenue in Blaine. Mr.
Culver reported on the recent public hearing held by the Roseville City
Council; noting formal action providing municipal consent for those cities impacted
would occur later. In between now and then, Mr. Culver advised there would
be other opportunities for public input related to the project.
Mr. Culver?s
review of the project including specific work to be done in phases to allow
traffic to flow; spot improvements including widening at I-694 to allow a
cloverleaf auxiliary lane on the north side to buffer merging traffic; and
overall improvements to current bottleneck areas.
As part of the
project, Mr. Culver advised an environmental assessment public outreach
related to noise walls would be done, with those noise walls located between
the Cleveland Avenue interchange by WalMart north to County Road D on the
east side only, as part of the process. Mr. Culver advised that two public
hearings had been scheduled by MnDOT for this federally-mandated process, one
in Blaine and one in New Brighton, both scheduled in September of 2016.
Since there is a city trail along that area, Mr. Culver reported that the
city would be considered a tenant and allotted two votes per parcel they
owned that involved a trail, and part of the determination as to whether a
noise wall was wanted or not. Mr. Culver noted other parcels along that
corridor were commercial properties and he wasn?t sure how they would vote on
a noise wall since part of the benefit for their business was visibility that
might be impaired by a noise wall, while hotel guests expressed frequent concerns
with noise from the freeway. Mr. Culver advised that city staff would
attempt to meet with those businesses to help the city in its determination
of how to vote.
At the request
of Member Thurnau, Mr. Culver confirmed that all parcels along the corridor
are developed, with possibly the exception of one parcel owned by Veritas
currently open space for their firm. However, Mr. Culver advised he wasn?t
aware of any plans they might have to sell the parcel or expand their
firm.
Mr. Culver
reviewed the construction staging of such a massive project that presented
many challenges, similar to that experienced with the recent I-35E
construction process, with current estimates for a four-year construction
project. Mr. Culver advised that there would be subsequent discussion on
hours of operation for contractors, location of grinding operations and
concrete plant, and other considerations. From the Roseville perspective,
Mr. Culver noted there would obviously be some impacts to the community, and
reported that MnDOT had been informed by city staff that they did not want
County Roads C and D closed at the same time in any one direction. Mr.
Culver advised that MnDOT was taking that into consideration for staging and
within their project specifications. Mr. Culver noted there would likely be
some overnight or weekend closures during the construction process.
Mr. Culver
further addressed bridge reconstruction as part of the project; on/off ramp
points, and how the project would be bid probably as a design/built project,
with the agency releasing 30% plans that are initially incomplete, but
providing initial desires, limitations and must-haves; with the winning
contractor designing the remainder of the system (e.g. pavement type, storm
sewer, etc.) all subject to MnDOT approval and contractors working with
design firms to try to finish a design and assign a process during the
project. Mr. Culver advised that typically this type of bid is faster and
MnDOT prefers it as the contractor takes on more risk and therefore has more
incentive to be creative and come up with new ideas and suggestions.
However, Mr. Culver noted this could prove more difficult for local agencies,
as they lost more control after the initial municipal consent at the
beginning of the concept. Mr. Culver noted this design/build scenario may
provide a reduced project schedule if the contractor proves more aggressive,
and while it would require more resources on site, it would mean less risk
with traffic controls.
Mr. Culver
advised that that project cost is projected at $205 million, with the state
only able to identify half of that as funding sources; and having applied for
additional federal funding to get the project done. At this point, Mr.
Culver advised that the proposed start date is 2019 if things fell into
place, but advised it could be moved up to 2018 if funding was found.
Overall, Mr.
Culver noted this would prove quite impactful for Roseville residents as
traffic diverted to avoid the mess. Mr. Culver advised that, as part of the
municipal consent, the city?s cost had been identified as none for the
project. However, Mr. Culver reported that the city may seek to partner with
MnDOT and/or Ramsey County for broader area storm water improvement designs
that would benefit financially through such a partnership. Mr. Culver noted
part of those items being considered at this time included traffic signal
rebuilding at ramps while they?re down, but also reported that would depend
on financial resources available.
Mr. Culver
advised that staff would continue to provide updates to the PWETC once
municipal consent and noise wall votes were finalized, but until a
cooperative maintenance agreement with MnDOT was drafted identifying any
additional costs for Roseville requested items, there wouldn?t be any action
items to consider.
- Wheeler Street Traffic
Management Program
Mr. Culver
provided an update on city staff?s work with residents in the Wheeler
Street/Shorewood Lane neighborhood on a Traffic Management Program project
that would potentially close Wheeler Street to traffic at County Road D. Mr.
Culver reviewed the background of this lengthy process; advising that staff
had asked the Roseville City Council to authorize a Feasibility Report at
their August 22, 2016 meeting.
Mr. Culver
reviewed the process to-date at length and various components prompted by
neighborhood concerns when Presbyterian Homes expanded their Lake Johanna
facility and impacts of construction equipment and traffic to the residential
neighborhood.
Mr. Culver
reviewed the broader Traffic Management Program adopted in 2012 (available on
city website) for residential neighborhood concerns; and reviewed the process
for its use and temporary closure of Wheeler Avenue in 2011 followed by
submission by the neighborhood of a petition for permanent closure for a
variety of reasons. Mr. Culver noted this was only the second request to use
the program since it had been adopted, with the other County Road C-2 between
Hamline and Lexington Avenues. As part of the Program, Mr. Culver reviewed
this specific project and Program parameters for the city to build or effect
improvements, but he neighborhood required to pay 70% of any mitigation
efforts. Mr. Culver reviewed the neighborhood surveys used during this
lengthy process to determine interest based on estimated costs of the
improvements, public hearings held and assessments based on final costs. Mr.
Culver noted the fall of 2016 was the proposed construction finalization by
Presbyterian Homes.
Mr. Culver
reviewed the neighborhood meetings held and initial concerns about their
projected costs to close the road, at that time estimated at $1,000 plus per
residence. After staff reviewed alternatives, with the city concern about
providing snow plow access and turnaround in residential driveways with now
full cul-de-sac, and as design concepts were reviewed.
As part of the
development agreement with the City of Arden Hills, Mr. Culver noted staff
recognized Presbyterian Homes would be adding considerable traffic to County
Road D, including during construction and impacts to the roadway from those
types of vehicles, Arden Hills made it a condition that Presbyterian Homes
had the choice of a full Arden Hills assessment for County Road D or its
reconstruction as part of their development project. While Roseville
remained unsure of the outcome for some time, Mr. Culver noted impacts to the
City of Roseville would result, as well as residents on Wheeler and their
residents? votes on whether or not to close Wheeler, with those residents
waiting until final costs for the Arden Hills project were known.
Ultimately, Mr. Culver reported that this summer Presbyterian Homes agreed to
rebuild County Road D and extend a curb across Wheeler and pay for the
closure of Wheeler, resulting in a reduced cost of approximately $425 for
each residence. Mr. Culver advised that the only cost to the City of
Roseville was relocation of one driveway from Wheeler to County Road D,
estimated at $20,000 since the existing driveway is concrete. Mr. Culver
advised that this month city staff had sent out another survey to the 42
benefitting property owners, with 38% responding ?yes,? a 90.4% response
rate, with only 3 not supporting the project due to their concerns with
emergency access and rerouting.
Mr. Culver
advised that typically staff would have brought this to the PWETC for their
recommendation to the City Council, but due to timing, they had to get an
answer to Presbyterian Homes and Arden Hills as part of the process before
tonight?s meeting.
Mr. Culver
reviewed the design of the closure and components, as well as the one
driveway relocation; and advised as part of the project a sidewalk would be
installed from Wheeler to County Road D. Mr. Culver reiterated that
Presbyterian Homes was committed to building all of the components with the
possible exception of a portion of the sidewalk and driveway relocation, a
city cost. While the final design is not ideal with no cul-de-sac or hammer
head design for snow plow turnaround, Mr. Culver advised that there would
have been a higher cost if the option to remove pavement to accomplish that
had been pursued. Mr. Culver advised the project to close Wheeler would
happen yet this fall or next spring/summer at the latest; with Presbyterian
Homes responsible for the assessment process, and in the long run saving the
City of Roseville, and those Wheeler residents, considerable money.
Mr. Culver
reported that city staff didn?t generally condone or advocate for road
closures, opining that options and connectivity are important to avoid
overloading one road over another and providing better emergency response.
While the ideal road layout is a grid structure, Mr. Culver admitted this was
a unique area.
PWETC
Feedback
At the request
of Vice Chair Lenz, Mr. Culver reviewed the other resident petition received
for County Road C-2 and traffic studies about traffic flow along that
roadway. Mr. Culver noted some residents were advocating for a traffic light
at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and County Road C-2; but noted the
downside of that was that more vehicles would then use that road, creating
more issues for those residents.
As part of
traffic management, Vice Chair Lenz requested review of timing of signal
lights on Snelling Avenue where it intersected with County Road C and Lincoln
Avenue.
Mr. Culver,
based on his past experience with traffic control and signal timing, noted
the challenges of those intersections and coordinating it and potential
backups from Snelling onto those east/west streets and little place for
traffic to go if timing was changed. Mr. Culver reviewed rationale with
higher traffic volume corridors and goal of signal timing to reduce the
average amount of delay at the intersection and along the entire corridor;
and unfortunate results that side streets generally get penalized and the
main lines get a priority to reduce overall average delays. Mr. Culver noted
it was frustrating with delays on side streets using that philosophy even
though it served the broader purpose.
Mr. Culver
noted the internal design work being considered by city staff and the City
Council to address that area, proposing County Road C-2, Snelling Avenue,
Lincoln Avenue and Terrace Drive be redesigned to offload the Lincoln side
and provide higher capacity and a better option at Fairview Avenue and County
Road D, by better coordinating Lydia Avenue, County Road C-2 and the County
Road C junctions.
Member Heimerl
asked who had made the decision on the assessment split of 75% / 25% under
the Traffic Management Plan parameters. In the case of the Wheeler Street
closure, Member Heimerl noted even though this was a restricted area for the
community, all Roseville residents would be covering 25% of the cost for the
closure and driveway relocation, resulting in a small number of residents being
allowed restricted access at the cost of all.
Mr. Culver
stated he would need to further review the discussion and rationale in
developing the Traffic Management Program modeled after other communities and
developed prior to his tenure with the city, but receiving PWETC and City
Council approvals at the time. In some cased, Mr. Culver noted the
improvements may be seen as improving the quality of life for a broader area
beyond those directly benefitting from a project.
As a resident,
Member Heimerl stated he might be less inclined to spend money on other
people?s road closures, when during Minnesota State Fair time, he couldn?t
get out of his own street onto Hamline Avenue.
With only two
projects having occurred as part of the Traffic Management Program, Mr.
Culver admitted the program and process had not been well vetted yet; and
suggested feedback from the PWETC to the City Council may prompt further
review or revisions to the Program. Mr. Culver opined this was an extreme
circumstance to close a road; and advised that he didn?t expect it to happen
often or even ever again, since traffic was diverted to another roadway if a
road was closed. In this case, Mr. Culver noted that traffic would be
diverting to Fairview Avenue, which some may think appropriate and where it
should have gone in the first place. Mr. Culver reiterated that he felt this
was an extreme case and doubted the city would see other items being
subsidized as such.
Discussion
ensued regarding sidewalk locations and traffic in the proximity of Lake
Johanna; and accommodations for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
At the request
of Member Thurnau, Mr. Culver confirmed that the sidewalk plowing would fall
under operational costs for the city, with the Parks & Recreation
Department performing that maintenance in residential areas. Since there
were no other city sidewalks in this area or close to it, Mr. Culver noted it
would be a long trip for a 50? section of sidewalk, with many of those logistics
yet to be worked out.
- Possible Items for Next
Meeting ? September 27, 2016
Mr. Culver
reviewed upcoming PWETC agendas and proposed topics.
October
·
Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan Update
·
2017 Utility Rate Discussion
No additional
topics were suggested by the commissioners.
- Adjourn
Member Trainer
moved, Member Thurnau seconded, adjournment of the PWETC at approximately
8:28 p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
|