|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, January 24, 2017 at 6:30 p.m.
1. Introduction
/ Call Roll
Chair Cihacek called
the meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m. and at his request, Public
Works Director Marc Culver called the roll.
Present: Chair Brian Cihacek; and Members John Heimerl,
Joe Wozniak, Duane Seigler, and Kody Thurnau
Absent: Vice Chair Sarah Brodt Lenz and Member
Thomas Trainor
Staff Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver and Assistant
Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer
2. Public
Comments
For the
benefit of the viewing audience, Chair Cihacek announced openings on the
PWETC, noting that applications could be submitted to the city online or by
contacting City Hall for an application; with specific information available
on the city?s website.
3. Approval
of November 29, 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.
Motion
Member Wozniak
moved, Member Seigler seconded, approval of the November 29, 2016 meeting
minutes as presented.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
4. Communication
Items
Public Works
Director Culver and Assistant Public Works Director Freihammer provided
additional comments and a brief review and update on projects and maintenance
activities listed in the staff report dated January 24, 2017.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver clarified that the City Council authorized hire
of a consultant architect for a detailed space needs analysis and concept
development for License Center and maintenance facility storage uses was
intended to examine existing facilities as well as other potential sites
and/or facilities.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver reviewed the recent Blaine, MN water supply
problem related to their software and SCADA system glitch. After that occurrence,
Mr. Culver assured the PWETC that, while this type of software issue could
happen with any system, including Roseville?s, in addition to checks and
double checks in place, Roseville city staff had been diligent in inspecting
the system to ensure its operational integrity.
Member Wozniak
reported that he had recently driven the new Twin Lake Parkway extension,
opining it looked good.
Mr. Culver
noted it would be more functional with installation of the signal next
spring, with the installation cost paid for by Roseville in generating the
need, but future maintenance and upkeep paid by Ramsey County, with
restriping Fairview Avenue as a 3-lane section.
Member Wozniak
further reported that he had recently been alerted via letter from the City
of Roseville begin running water to avoid water line freeze-ups, one of
approximately 120 households needing to do so.
Mr. Culver
advised that, when major street maintenance is performed in those areas, the
depth of water lines would be corrected, negating the need to run water any
longer.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver advised that some of those homes requiring
siphoning are clustered while others are at random locations across the city,
depending on the depth of their service lines that should ideally be at 7? to
8? deep. As an example an in the case of Member Wozniak?s, Mr. Culver
reported that his line was closer to 4? to 5? deep. Mr. Culver reported that
this more shallow depth could be for a variety of reasons, including but not
limited to changes in roadway profiles for some reason, or perhaps due to
incorrect installations at one time or another.
Mr. Culver
noted that the communication items included a memorandum dated January 17,
2017 (Attachment C) to the PWETC from the Community Development Department
introducing the comprehensive plan update process and providing a glimpse
into the commission?s role during the process.
5. Snelling
Avenue Project
City Engineer
Jesse Freihammer introduced MnDOT Project Manager Chad Casey for a short
presentation on the upcoming Rehabilitation Project (S.P. 6216-127) Highway
51/Snelling Avenue from Como Avenue to Highway 36
As part of the
presentation for this project with a cost estimate of &6,800,00, Mr.
Casey reviewed the anticipated schedule with bid letting in February and
construction start in April; with a projected October 2017 completion date.
Mr. Casey clarified that interim completion dates were weather-dependent; but
noted that the contract would include incentives for the contractor to
complete the work by mid-August in consideration of the subsequent MN State
Fair.
Discussion
included questions on logistics for restricted left turn lanes and medians to
ensure resident awareness of the upcoming project; concrete repair north and
southbound similar to that done on old Larpenteur Avenue pavement between
Victoria Street and Fernwood Avenue. Staff noted that this was a messy and
noisy operation, and advised that the work schedule would be staged to
accommodate residents, weather and the contractor?s work. While there will
be lane changes throughout the project, Mr. Culver advised that at no time
was there any lack of access planned for left turns on Larpenteur Avenue,
Roselawn Avenue or other major streets in the work zone; with Mr. Casey
confirming that, even though there may be some shifting necessary at
intersections for signal light and lane changes.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Casey clarified that after completion of the project,
traffic could turn onto Garden, but would be limited to exit only onto
Roselawn. At the further request of Member Seigler, Mr. Culver stated that,
while there may be some traffic increase on Roselawn during the process,
human nature was for vehicular traffic to seek alternate routes to avoid
construction; and while there may be some fluctuations with traffic, this
neighborhood was used to finding alternate routes to accommodate annual State
Fair traffic and other area events and activities.
Further discussion
included maintaining pedestrian crossings if and when one leg of an
intersection was down for construction, with the other side open for
crossing; with project documents requiring the contractor to maintain those
pedestrian crossings at all times.
Member Thurnau
sought clarification on accommodations and reasonable access coordination by
the contractor and MnDOT for the busy bus stop at that location, and
increased bus ridership with the new A-Line BRT.
Mr. Casey
noted there may be some adjustments needed with schedules, but anticipated
limited disruption to bus times and the A-Line BRT corridor, noting that a
similar project closer to St. Paul had been accomplished and coordinated well
with Metro Transit staff.
Mr. Culver
confirmed with Mr. Casey that there would be some signal work as part of the
project at County Road B and Snelling with a new countdown signal installed;
dual left turn lanes on Snelling Avenue; and extended 300? turn lane to get
left-turning traffic out of the drive lane.
Member Seigler
noted ongoing back-ups at east/west intersections onto Snelling Avenue,
asking if this project would improve that in any way.
Mr. Casey
stated that that improvement was anticipated.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Casey confirmed that the medians would be
reconstructed of concrete material.
Member Heimerl
noted the frustration with the diminishing bike lane heading eastbound at the
intersection of Larpenteur and Snelling Avenues (SW corner) asking if plans
included improving that bike lane.
Mr. Casey stated
that unfortunately, there wasn?t enough width or right-of-way to improve that
bike lane, which would continue to disappear into the right turn lane at that
point.
At the request
of Mr. Culver, discussion continued as to the function of the bike lane, and
whether or not it was an actual marked bike lane or shoulder of the road;
with Members Heimerl and Thurnau noting that the lane was fairly wide from
the U of MN campus east, and up to the apartment complexes, at which point it
tapers as it comes into proximity with Snelling Avenue.
Mr. Casey
agreed with PWETC members, noting that it was also irritating on the southeast
side of Snelling and Larpenteur Avenues, that there was no bike lane
available. While it was unfortunate for MnDOT to be unable to improve on
that amenity, with suspicion that it was not actually a marked bike lane, Mr.
Casey noted that the project would only change the length of the right turn
lane, and agreed this was a difficult area for crossing Snelling Avenue with
no bike lane; but was unaware of any long-term solutions that had been
identified.
Given the
amount of bike traffic from U of MN students, as well as other commuter and
recreational bicycling in Roseville and within the region, Member Heimerl
suggested the city look into that concern moving into the future.
Chair Cihacek
noted upcoming PWETC review of the transportation and master pathway plan as
part of the comprehensive plan update underway.
With Member
Seigler noting the fence location at Snelling Avenue in this area and
pedestrians still trying walk along that area, Mr. Casey advised that MnDOT
was aware of that, but there was insufficient room between the building and
traffic (west side of Snelling Avenue); with input from State Fair
representatives in agreement that there was no room for a sidewalk at that
point.
However, Mr.
Casey noted that a new sidewalk had been installed from Hoyt to Larpenteur
Avenues, with limited boulevard right-of-way available making it tight at the
east Snelling Drive frontage road, especially given grade differentials at
that point, and the need to install the curb tight against the curb without
additional snow storage or pedestrian distance from the roadway.
Mr. Casey
advised that MnDOT had originally worked with the City of Falcon Heights,
given that there was originally a higher trail by the pond up close to the
road, but noted it had proven hard to get a connection to the local sidewalk
system, even though Falcon Heights had requested that MnDOT tie those two
segments together. While MnDOT did achieve an interconnection, Mr. Casey
advised that once it got to the Falcon Height crossing facility, the existing
sidewalk was found to be located on private property; and while consideration
was given to other options, there were too many obstacles in the right-of-way
process at complete at the time of installation, with Falcon Heights unsure
it could work out a deal with property owners in time, causing the new
sidewalk to currently run parallel to that sidewalk on private property up to
Larpenteur Avenue. While it will look funny, Mr. Casey advised that it would
provide the pedestrian access and safety necessary for the time being.
At the request
of Mr. Culver, Mr. Casey advised that several smaller trees in that area will
be relocated by the City of Falcon Heights, but confirmed that some larger
ones will be removed while some will remain.
At the request
of Member Seigler, Mr. Casey confirmed that beyond Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) improvements, and reconfiguring the island on the east
side of Snelling Avenue to bring it up to current ADA requirements for
landing areas and slopes, nothing else was intended for the Skillman area and
cross street to Cub Foods on Larpenteur Avenue. Mr. Casey noted there would
be minor sidewalk repairs of cracks and for ADA compliance throughout the
corridor associated with the project.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Casey advised that no traffic detours were planned,
with only lane closures that would be shifted accordingly.
Mr. Culver and
Mr. Casey advised that there would be concrete rehabilitation work up to the
bridge deck and for the long ramps, but not the loops.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Freihammer advised that there would be no utility work touching
upon this project, other than east of I-35W and south of Snelling Avenue
(Snelling Service Drive) where the city would be doing mill and overlay work
between County Road B and south of County Road B north of Roselawn Avenue, as
noted in the 2017 Pavement Management Plan (PMP) project map; but not
directly tied into this project. Since this would affect residents and
neighborhood streets in the area, Chair Cihacek sought assurance that city
staff would coordinate with MnDOT on work schedules. Mr. Freihammer
confirmed that staff would attempt to do so, but also noted other time
considerations, including weather, the State Fair and short summer
construction season to get the work accomplished. Mr. Freihammer stated that
staff didn?t anticipate much cut-through traffic on those neighborhood
streets beyond local residents; with the city?s work fairly quick, and
creating no major concerns with any additional neighborhood traffic.
6. Transportation
Plan Update RFP
Mr. Freihammer
reported that, as part of the overall 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update
currently underway, the Transportation Plan, and Master Pathway Plan will
also be updated. Mr. Freihammer noted that the current Transportation Plan
(Attachment B) had last been updated in 2009; and the Pathway Master Plan
(Attachment C) in 2007/2008. Mr. Freihammer briefly summarized the process
as it related to and impacted the remainder of the comprehensive plan update
and process, proposed for completion by year-end 2017 for submission to the
Metropolitan Council. Mr. Freihammer reviewed the scope of transportation
plan elements, with the Request for Proposals (RFP) for a consultant with
that specific expertise selected through the Best Value Procurement process.
Mr. Culver
expanded on Mr. Freihammer?s summary, emphasizing that the city considered
this an update to the existing plan, and therefore was not seeking or
anticipating any extensive changes from that plan and what it addressed or
recommended. Mr. Culver noted that prior to seeking a consultant for the
update, staff had been able to check off some projects completed since the
last update (e.g. Twin Lakes Parkway and several sidewalk links for the
Pathway Master Plan). Mr. Culver advised that the goal was to engage the
public in the update process to hear their overall concerns about motorized
and non-motorized transit in and around Roseville. Mr. Culver referenced
previous comments received from PWETC Member Lenz regarding her ongoing
concerns with the level of mass transit operations in Roseville; as well as
those voiced by others in and around Roseville, especially with east/west
routes and connections. Therefore, Mr. Culver reported that those concerns,
as well as potential options, will be well-documented as part of the
transportation update.
Specific to
the Pathway Master Plan, Mr. Culver noted that the previously-seated PWETC
went through a process in 2013 attempting to update prioritization of
segments initially ranked in 2008. However, Mr. Culver advised that the City
Council had expressed concern with their overall process and inconsistency in
how they applied criteria for their ranking. Therefore, Mr. Culver noted the
preference to seek broader public comment on the ranking, especially given
the continued feedback received from and concerns expressed by residents on
the apparent ?shotgun? approach in completing segments and connections. Mr.
Culver reported that the city was in receipt of one petition to-date from a
neighborhood group seeking a sidewalk in their area. However, Mr. Culver noted
the need to re-examine the entire city and hear from residents in a broader
sense, causing excitement among staff to hear their perspectives.
With Chair
Cihacek noting the responsibility in deciding on those priorities for the
next ten years, Mr. Culver reminded commissioners that nothing would be set
in stone, and only used as a planning document, and identifying deficiencies
in the current transportation network, including safety concerns and ways to
address them. Mr. Culver noted that, as projects come up and funding becomes
available, including opportunities for grant funds, all those components
would serve to inform projects and their costs. Mr. Culver also noted that
as new needs came forward, or the City Council was able to fund segments or
projects not included as priorities in the current plan, they could be
recommended at that time.
Chair Cihacek
sought clarification, with confirmation by Mr. Culver, as to the PWETC?s
review of the current plan and a potentially different ranking system for
priorities and pathway sections within a ten-year budget cycle; as well as
the intent to reintroduce the plan as currently written to obtain public
comment, even if it was found that it required significant changes.
Mr. Culver
noted that the process would also take advantage of other community plans for
wider consideration to allow the city to be in a position to seek input from
the public for PWETC consideration as it considered prioritizing segments.
As to Chair Cihacek?s concern as to how those connections are made based on
the PWETC?s recommendations, Mr. Culver clarified that the focuses with the
transportation consultant for this portion of the comprehensive plan update
would focus on public rights-of-way and transportation links; while the Parks
& Recreation Commission?s view was more from a recreational perspective
versus the PWETC?s view of transportation corridors or routes, even though
they may frequently overlap.
Chair Cihacek
opined that in order for the PWETC to develop a strong plan, they would need
recommendations on working them together to achieve an economy of scale; and
therefore questioned why this portion of the comprehensive plan update was
solicited separately from the overall consultant.
Mr. Freihammer
advised that, under the previous plan update, all chapters were updated
jointly as a whole, with the general consultant using a subconsultant for
their expertise. However, Mr. Freihammer reported that this less extensive
update was seeking to retain more control and specialization in
transportation planning, especially with pathway extensions and connections;
hopefully providing more flexibility versus only serving as a small subset of
the broader plan update. Mr. Freihammer clarified that whatever consultant
is chosen for the transportation plan update would still be working closely
with the general consultant, including coordinating meetings for public
engagement, including how the transportation plan coincides with the broader
comprehensive plan update (e.g. land use chapter).
Mr. Culver
noted that, since the City of Roseville was mostly a fully-developed
community versus an undeveloped community, the need for land use as the key
component of what the transportation system has to support, this update
wasn?t as inter-related as that process would need to be. While there is
still interaction between the two (e.g. density, commercial areas, impacts to
localized intersections), this transportation plan update didn?t require building
any new freeways or east/west corridors through Roseville, but would instead
be focusing on intersections and existing safety concerns or bottlenecks
throughout the community.
Chair Cihacek
asked if it didn?t cost the city more to hire two consultants, or require a
higher front-end cost if the two were not integrated into one contract.
Chair Cihacek opined that it seemed that there would have been a lower impact
and higher cost in using the Best Value Procurement method for the whole
project, providing a stronger specialty subset. Even though Roseville was
not seeing any major changes in its transportation system, Chair Cihacek
suggested that the Arden Hills? development of the Rice Creek Commons (former
TCAAP site) should be taken into consideration for regional transportation
issues as part of the comprehensive plan update.
Mr. Culver
assured the PWETC that the update process would look to the Metropolitan
Council?s regional documents for those changes in land use in Arden Hills,
with the Rice Creek Commons development trickling down into city, county and
state roadways.
Member Thurnau
sought clarification as to why the Pathway Master Plan remained a separate
document versus becoming part of the overall comprehensive plan document.
Mr. Culver
advised that he was unclear as to the rationale, but reported that the
Transportation Plan and Pathway Master Plan would remain as two separate
documents, by reference, to the comprehensive plan, similar to that of the
Water Surface Plan and other appendices to the comprehensive plan. Mr.
Culver suggested it may be to retain separation of those plans from the
comprehensive plan itself to avoid it needing to be subject to review and
comment by the Metropolitan Council if and when revised, with each of those
documents remaining living documents, allowing the city to retain more
control over than a once every ten year update as mandated by the
Metropolitan Council. Mr. Culver reiterated that these two components were
considered planning documents, and it had apparently proven beneficial during
the history of the community to retain them as separate documents.
At the request
of Member Wozniak, Mr. Freihammer reiterated that the last update of these
plans was done enmass with the overall update, even though a separate
subconsultant had worked on the transportation aspects. However, Mr.
Freihammer reported that the last update was more extensive versus technical,
such as having more emphasis on the Twin Lakes Parkway and other major
components at that time. Also, Mr. Freihammer advised that a Technical
Advisory Group (TAC) would be scheduling meetings during the process and
seeking public input, with the intent to use the PWETC to receive that
comment and feedback on the plan moving forward.
Mr. Culver
concurred, advising that the PWETC would be the body for holding those public
hearings for both plans in the future, with the RFP as presented indicating
three meetings with the PWETC: one focused on the Pathway MP, and how the
PWETC envisioned their involvement as part of their overall workload over the
upcoming year and available meetings.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver reviewed the public hearing process, similar to
that held for the annual MS4 hearings by the PWETC; and part of the normal
business meeting of the PWETC.
Motion
Member Wozniak
moved, Member Heimerl seconded, recommending to the City Council approval and
formal release of the Request for Proposals as presented to update the current
Transportation Plan, including the existing Pathway Master Plan.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
7.
Stormwater Management Standards for Parking Lots
Environmental
Specialist Ryan Johnson provided a brief introduction and subsequent presentation
to accomplish the goals of the city?s Comprehensive Surface Water Management
Plan (CSWMP) for compliance and consistency in evaluating proposed
development and redevelopment projects throughout the city, as detailed in
the staff report and related attachments. As language in the standards is
revisited, staff sought PWETC feedback regarding how parking lot projects are
reviewed going forward, specific to goals, policies and options.
In the policy
sections for stormwater management standards, Chair Cihacek noted there was
no definition of ?aggregate base? materials and surfaces beyond that broad
term.
Mr. Johnson
advised that this CSWMP did not include a definition section, but referenced
two components as written in city policy. Mr. Johnson noted that the larger issue
was how and when projects impact the base and/or sub-base materials based on
the square footage of disturbed area, with the city and area watershed
district rules and requirements for ?land disturbance? not always consistent.
Mr. Freihammer
advised that it was intentional to not to define ?reclaim, mill and overlay,
complete resurfacing, or reconstruction, but to leave as ?aggregate base? in
a broader sense to allow flexibility in future clarification and direction.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Johnson reviewed current watershed district and city
rules, with the city typically not as strict as those of the watershed
districts, particularly those of the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD).
Mr. Johnson advised that in developments or improvements of over one acre,
the strictest requirements would supercede those less stringent, but that the
goal was to bring them into consistency.
Mr. Culver
noted the variables depending on the specific area or section, but clarified
that an improvement must ultimately meet both city and watershed district
requirements, whether or not they were currently at different thresholds.
Mr. Culver advised that there was no statute or law that one trumped the
other, but both needed to be met, and the goal was to have a policy in place
that didn?t overly burden property owners and/or developers, but still
achieved adequate or improved stormwater management standards. Mr. Culver
clarified that from his perspective, the city should be consistent with
watershed district rules when reaching their threshold.
Member Wozniak
noted that in some instances, the watershed district seemed less restrictive.
Mr. Freihammer
confirmed that the city was more aggressive as to what triggered a disturbed
area, but noted that the city?s definition was up in the air now. Mr.
Freihammer noted the area for discussion needed to include if and when all
pavement was removed, but the base remained in place, did that trigger city
water quality treatment and rate control requirements, or was t triggered if
you did light grading but didn?t disturb native soils as per watershed
district rules. If the city stuck with its current rules, Mr. Freihammer
noted that they either needed to be clarified as to the trigger or revised
the match watershed district requirements accordingly as to that threshold.
As part of his
presentation, Mr. Johnson displayed an illustration showing pavement section
cross sections, and where current city and watershed district policies
differed, the major point needing clarification based on PWETC feedback on
the actual policy going forward.
While the city
is just under fourteen square miles in area, Mr. Johnson noted that within
that area there were 127 miles of storm water. At the time of original
installation for a major portion of that storm sewer infrastructure, Mr.
Johnson noted that it had been undersized and therefore in today?s world,
couldn?t more water through the systems efficiently. Mr. Johnson reviewed
examples of local flooding issues throughout the community and current design
standards for 10% probability storms (10 year, 4.2 inches within 24 hours).
While having consistently chipped away at those most problematic flooding
areas as projects, time and funding were available, Mr. Johnson noted that
there remained large gaps in improving overall stormwater management in the
community.
At the request
of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Johnson reviewed average costs for replacing stormwater
systems, typically at $25 to $30 per foot for a 12 inch pipe, with larger
diameter pipes costing more, at the current rate of replacement on an
as-needed basis, there remained many segments nearing or exceeding the end of
their life span, creating more failures. As a less expensive or impactful way
to address some of that stormwater management, Mr. Johnson noted additional
best management practices (BMP?s) with variable costs as well as larger
systems involving pervious pavement or underground containment systems as a
larger expense. Due to capacity issues downstream and watershed district
requirements, Mr. Johnson advised that the city often couldn?t upsize
replacement BMP?s, often having to replace them at the same size, line the
pipes, or pond stormwater.
As examples,
Mr. Johnson used the Saint Rose of Lima and Ramsey County Library ? Roseville
Branch as areas of concern based on historic flooding issues. Mr. Johnson
also reviewed several options for stormwater as parking lots throughout the
city are redeveloped where current problematic runoff areas could be
addressed for possible improvements. As part of those options, Mr. Johnson
provided cost comparisons for city underground projects, a complete parking
lot reconstruction and potential increases for a parking lot project in
addition to annual maintenance costs, with the city?s cost coming from its
Stormwater Impact Fund. Mr. Johnson noted that this represented a big issue
for availability of land and cost if not all stormwater management could be
addressed above-ground.
As part of the
presentation, Mr. Johnson reviewed Option 1.a (no change); Option 1.b (no
policy change but added clarification); Option 2 (requiring treatment when
parking lot based material is exposed through BMP installation or payment
into the city?s Stormwater Impact Fund); or Option 3 (providing city support
for BMP?s through design or financial assistance, whether or not stormwater
requirements are needed but assisting with the overall drainage system).
Also, Mr. Johnson asked the PWETC to consider whether or not to only apply
city policy in special designated zones with the city (e.g. in areas
historically known to have drainage issues or affecting water resources for
impaired water bodies); parking lots with defined minimum sizes and how they
would be addressed when improved; and project cost caps or costs per square
foot caps as applicable.
Considerable
discussion ensued regarding costs to a property owner in redoing their
parking lots, using those examples given by Mr. Johnson. That discussion
included how the various options and their pros and cons would apply; how
staff could identify and monitor parking lots when open to the base or native
soil versus current triggers in city policy; with the overall goal to be
encourage not only parking lot but drainage and stormwater management
improvements without discouraging those improvements due to unwelcome
requirements and additional costs for property owners, as well as the city,
along with possibly providing city assistance to encourage needed stormwater
improvements.
Further
discussion included parking lot sizes; how to ensure compliance with policies
and requirements; design criteria for stormwater management standards in
parking lots depending on their size and location based on a standard trigger
of square footage; and types of improvements manageable for those mid-sized
and smaller parking lots compared to larger ones falling under watershed
district rules (e.g. Rosedale Center and installation of an underground
gallery). Mr. Culver provided another example for the Fairview Medical
Center?s new wing at County Road C and Fairview Avenue, when just over 5,000
square feet of their parking lot was disturbed, triggering in the
installation of one large infiltration basin
With Chair
Cihacek noting that rain gardens or hard landscapes could also be part of a
solution, Mr. Freihammer advised that staff was open to any design at the
owner?s choice as long as it met the standards. At the further request of
Chair Cihacek, Mr. Freihammer clarified what triggered a permit for new or
reconstruction based on square footage. However, Mr. Freihammer noted the
current issue is policy language in the CSWMP that was ambiguous as to if and
when maintenance of an existing lot versus redoing the lot triggered
stormwater management improvements.
Member Heimerl
questioned the amount of pervious pavement allowed, and whether the city
would ever encourage its installation through incentives or other means for
residences and businesses to install it in key locations in driveways or
parking lots to prevent pollutants getting into the system. Member Heimerl
used a personal example in his own driveway where a section needed
replacement in the near future, and his consideration of a pervious
application for that segment. If such allowances were made throughout the
city, Member Heimerl questioned the overall aggregate improvement for the
stormwater system, an in light of the larger and larger rainfalls being
experienced. Even with the installation of larger catch basins, Member
Heimerl asked if the city would ever resolve drainage and flooding issues.
Member Heimerl noted that the city kept building underground stormwater
basins without a global approach to manage stormwater, seeking whether or not
pervious pavement could accomplish the goal of keeping water off the streets.
Mr. Johnson
responded that any improvement for drainage would help; and noted that any
producer of porous pavements would have engineering specifications as to how
much drainage it would address based on the rock subgrade with it,
essentially allowing underground storage with obvious additional costs for
extra excavation and rock for that base. By looking at that option, Mr.
Johnson advised that a lot of the city?s stormwater concerns could be
addressed, and should and could be done city wide. However, Mr. Johnson advised
that the problem was in the inability to treat all of the runoff coming off
acres and acres of parking lots, driveways and other impervious surfaces
citywide. Therefore, the easiest way to address the problem was to contain
that water on site.
Mr. Culver
clarified, however, that just because pervious pavement is installed, it
didn?t mean that all water infiltrates into the ground depending on the soil
type. In Roseville, Mr. Culver advised that the impact would be small due to
the heavy soils in the majority of the community, even though it would allow
some rate control and slow drainage down some. Regarding funding, Mr. Culver
noted that, while the city?s Stormwater Utility Fund was available, it also
needed to fund all stormwater maintenance, including street sweeping and more
aggressive pond clean-up of late, as well as addressing other existing
stormwater infrastructure needs. Mr. Culver cautioned that the city was on
the edge of experiencing some large failures, similar to those experienced in
the recent past in the water distribution and sanitary sewer systems. While
this Fund is available and had been well-managed to-date by forward thinking
investment, Mr. Culver cautioned the need to retain the Fund in a sustainable
manner based on the overall asset management system.
While agreeing
with the concept of maintaining a sustainable stormwater system, Mr. Culver
clarified that the city would never be able to handle all rainfall events,
and would be unable to design on those projections. Mr. Culver noted that
the more money spent on incentivizing projects, the less available for
maintenance. Mr. Culver advised that the city had been and continued to be
deliberate in setting aside certain amounts for infrastructure improvements,
it did tie its hands in the amount available for cost participation for
stormwater management. As an example, Mr. Culver noted the city?s cost
participation in the I-35W improvements; and reiterated that incentives were
a good concept but were also limited.
If moving toward
a cost-share model, Chair Cihacek suggested the need to increase permits and
fees to meet those future obligations and cost share opportunities.
With Option 3,
Mr. Culver opined that the most feasible option was a grant fund, and if
used, carried over for subsequent years, similar to that used for the city?s
20-year capital improvement fund (CIP) policy to meet those needs and goals.
Chair Cihacek
noted other potential funding sources, including the Metropolitan Council,
watershed districts, and private parties. By making people aware of those
other funding sources, Chair Cihacek opined that it would meet the city?s
technical assistance goals.
Mr. Johnson
reviewed the next steps after tonight?s feedback is incorporated into
stormwater management standards, with those revisions brought back to the
PWETC for recommendation and subsequent approval by the City Council.
Further
discussion included minimum and maximum parking lot sizes to trigger
stormwater drainage improvements and rationale for those triggers; the
considerable number of parking lot applications received by the city in a
given year, typically consisting of a two-inch mill and overlay that didn?t
trigger drainage requirements; and how to clarify those thresholds.
Chair Cihacek
opined that, at a minimum, that trigger needed to be defined.
With that, Mr.
Freihammer sought input from the PWETC for how to define it, whether through
how much was disturbed (e.g. gravel or native soil) and how to account for
the preferred improvement by the applicant versus a reasonable city
standard. Mr. Freihammer opined that the goal was to encourage property
owners to make drainage improvements versus doing only the minimum (mill and
overlay) even when their parking lot may be well beyond that option, but based
on cost issues.
Chair Cihacek
suggested that staff determine a definition of preference from watershed
district definitions, and return to the PWETC with cost estimates
accordingly; but asked that it be made easier to read and user-friendly for
the average lay person compared to the current policy that didn?t provide
that plain language. Chair Cihacek spoke in support of Option 1 as the
minimum, with a definition of ?aggregate base? preferably with an
illustration to help with the definition and understanding. Chair Cihacek
suggested including that follow-up discussion for the February 2017 PWETC
meeting to allow further evaluation of additional steps beyond that. If
staff decides to accept any watershed definitions, Chair Cihacek stated his
need to hear staff?s justification in doing so and why they support that
definition or policy versus being less restrictive. While unsure at this
point if the city needed to rewrite the definition entirely, Chair Cihacek
noted the need for staff to provide rationale to do so.
Mr. Culver
clarified that, one of the reasons staff was seeking input from the PWETC,
was that they recognized that the current definition related to stormwater
mitigation standards, while proving more beneficial to the overall stormwater
system, presented a burden to businesses, thus staff?s identification of the
pros and cons for each option as part of tonight?s presentation. Mr. Culver
advised that it was difficult for staff to make a recommendation with caveats
that benefited the overall system and reduced flooding, in consideration of
whether or not the burden was justified to those businesses.
With Chair
Cihacek still emphasizing the need for staff to quantify that, Mr. Culver
responded that this had been the attempt in citing the various examples
tonight.
Chair Cihacek
stated that he was supportive of Option 2, but was still unclear what staff
was asking for in the first place; and while some elements were already in
place for Option 3, dedication of more funding was a different issue, but he
would need more information to consider that option seriously. For instance,
Chair Cihacek asked what was meant by ?burden? since there were many ways the
city could require mitigation and variable costs as well.
Mr. Freihammer
focused on whether or not to require mitigation, such as if following
watershed district requirements there would be no mitigation if you regraded
the entire parking lot and therefore no mitigation cost. However, Mr.
Freihammer reiterated the need to know what that trigger was, which was in
part a philosophical issue when the real cost came into play, and depending
on the site and property owners (e.g. commercial and/or residential
parcels). Mr. Freihammer noted that costs could be minimal unless the site
was already constrained.
Mr. Culver
noted that most commercial properties in Roseville didn?t have enough green
space for a rain garden, and while some could install one or more, there was
a cost involved. Therefore, Mr. Culver noted that most commercial property owners
would then be forced to pay or bauild an underground system without another
option available.
Chair Cihacek
responded that it was fine to start mitigation efforts, but again at this
time there wasn?t enough specificity as to what that mitigation may involve;
and whether that meant increasing permit costs to provide technical
assistance as outlined in Option 3, rewrite Option 1 with a definition of
?aggregate base,? or Option 2 using the current policy if the base is
exposed.
Mr. Freihammer
suggested one way to rewrite policy would be to have size as a trigger, and
the amount of disturbance (e.g. gravel or native soil).
In other
words, Chair Cihacek noted the need to find the sweet spot for city
intervention.
Member Wozniak
opined that he didn?t think it should be based on cost, but the actual
trigger instead, and spoke in support of Option 2. If the goal for
?aggregate base? is to improve drainage citywide, Member Wozniak stated that
he had no problem with the property owner paying those costs, since he
considered it their responsibility to pay for mitigation if their stormwater
runoff is causing the problem. Member Wozniak used a recent example of
flooding seen in the city that damaged and cost considerable cost to adjacent
or area homeowners, through no fault of their own due to the impervious
surface of a parking lot in that area. Member Wozniak noted that the city
currently had strict requirements for residential properties and limits that
could be done on a residential lot as far as making improvements based on
square footage and impervious coverage; opining that the same consistent
application should be for commercial and/or larger parking lots without
consideration of costs.
Member Seigler
supported requirements to address large, but not small, parking lots.
Member Wozniak
suggested the caveat that opportunities for improvement be taken as they
become available.
Member Seigler
noted differences in bringing a parking lot up to its original condition,
while at some point mill and overlay would no longer be sufficient if and
when some parts were worn away and gravel was showing.
Mr. Culver
spoke in support of that point noting, as an example, the strip mall at
Lincoln and Terrace Drives and parking lot condition. From staff?s
perspective, Mr. Culver noted the difficulty in determining whether to
require regarding based on varying conditions of the pavement in that one
situation, and therefore, supporting the need to better define the trigger
for when regarding was required and whether it was considered maintenance or
an improvement.
Member Seigler
questioned if smaller strip mall lots had sufficient money for major parking
lot improvements if the threshold is lowered; suggesting a commercial
property owner in that situation may choose to simply let their parking lot
fall apart completely versus maintaining it. From his personal perspective,
Member Seigler opined that if they went to the gravel base and returned the
lot to its original condition, there should be no mitigation required.
Member Thurnau
asked staff for their annual estimate of parking lot permits for each given
scenario and those property owners not seeking permit, but simply doing the
work unknown to the city until after the fact.
Mr. Culver
estimated that the annual number of parking lot improvement permits could
range from two to twenty.
Mr. Freihammer
opined that those permits generally related to a limited mill and overlay,
while others may be striping or restriping their lots; with some involving a
full reconstruction and pulling up the gravel, but also noted that those full
reconstruct permits were few and far between and usually involved a
redevelopment project or poor parking lot design needing redesign.
Without
hearing any justification to support changing it, Member Heimerl stated his
continued support for retaining the current requirements in a consistent
manner. While recognizing that the current language wasn?t clear, Member
Heimerl noted his preference for staff to formalize that language and what
had been required of commercial properties to-date rather than increasing or
reducing those requirements, but keeping all at the same level. For lots
exceeding 5,000 square feet, Member Heimerl spoke in support of the city
working with the property owner or developer on stormwater management.
Member Heimerl stated his preference to see the wording better defined to
cover that option and keep the policy consistent, unless staff could justify
the need to become more aggressive than that current policy.
Member Wozniak
opined that staff had already provided examples of the need for the city to
be more aggressive to address citywide flooding and drainage concerns.
Member Heimerl
noted that in some cases (e.g. Saint Rose of Lima) a commercial or
institutional parking lot drainage problem may be a result of surrounding
residential properties and impervious coverage or grading of those lots
versus the parking lot creating the problem. Member Heimerl questioned what
was the bigger issue, noting that each home contributed to that runoff as
well; and therefore, he didn?t want to hit businesses harder if not also
addressing residential properties at the same time.
In conclusion
and without objection, Chair Cihacek directed staff to revise the policy
include a definition of ?exposed aggregate;? noting that the majority of the
PWETC supported some elements of Options 2 and 3 pending current practices;
with Member Seigler pointing out the need to define ?new? or somehow define
what accounted for activities on a site to trigger stormwater improvements;
while providing a defensible policy for enforcement. Chair Cihacek
summarized that the majority of the PWETC seemed supportive of a better
standard based on current policy and a clearer sense, with elements of
Options 2 and 3, with Option 1 a must.
With consensus
support by the PWETC, Mr. Freihammer advised that staff would rewrite the
ordinance with two different options, clarifying descriptions, and resulting
impacts under both options.
Specific to
the next iteration coming before the PWETC, Mr. Johnson noted that the sooner
the better, as the intent was to make sure revisions were available to SEH
for their incorporation of that into the Surface Water Management Plan update
in process.
8.
Items for Next Meeting ? February 28, 2017
Discussion
ensued regarding the February agenda, moving the TIF discussion out further
as it wasn?t a time-sensitive issue; including the Transportation Plan RFP
(anticipated in April, August and November); and deadlines for comments on
the Plan back to Mr. Johnson via email by February 20, 2017 for staff to
incorporate them into the February meeting packet.
9.
Adjourn
Member Heimerl
moved, Member Thurnau seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 8:32
p.m.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried.
|