|
Roseville Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission |
|
Meeting Minutes Tuesday, February 28, 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 Thomas Trainor, John Heimerl, Joe Wozniak, and Duane Seigler
Absent: Vice Chair Sarah Brodt Lenz and Member Kody Thurnau
Staff Present: Public Works Director Marc Culver, Assistant Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer and Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson 2. Public Comments
3. Approval of January 24, 2017 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 Trainor seconded, approval of the January 24, 2017 meeting minutes as amended.
Corrections: § Page 14, Line 640 (Wozniak) Typographical correction from “regarded” to “regraded”
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, maintenance activities, and City Council actions listed in the staff report dated February 28, 2017.
Discussion included a surplus of salt so far for next season, providing financial and material considerations but representing only a minimal impact on the overall Public Works/Engineering budget that was projected and adjusted annually; stability of road salt over time compared to the less and unknown stability or possible spoilage of the organic beet juice received in large plastic containers and delivered more on an as-needed basis until further researched; and this year’s mild winter allowing for catch up on additional maintenance and operational issues (e.g. street sweeping earlier than normal, tree trimming). Mr. Culver reported that the wear and tear on road equipment may be less this year than normal, but also noted that the city still did a considerable amount of pre-treating and ice control measures during the winter months.
For the benefit of the listening audience, Member Heimerl asked staff to reassure residents of the city’s water system in lieu of another system problem in the City of Blaine; and asked if staff was confident of Roseville’s water system and didn’t anticipate similar issues.
Mr. Culver responded that city staff was confident of its SCADA and back-up systems in place; as well as its water supply system. As a precautionary measure, Mr. Culver reported that staff was doing a thorough review of its back-up systems; and as mentioned at the last PWETC meeting, the city’s largest concern was with its booster station, with monies allotted in the city’s capital improvement program (CIP) to upgrade and rehabilitate the booster station, with the city in the process of accelerating those plans (e.g. new generator) to ensure continued delivery.
Member Heimerl also noted recent news reports of vandals opening fire hydrants in Big Lake, MN, and asked if there was any similar issue in Roseville that may result in a drop in pressure by opening key fire hydrants that could put Roseville at a disadvantage; or if there was any way to detect or notice pressure issues in the system.
Mr. Culver responded that, while unsure if an interruption of small scale would be immediately noticed, there were monitors in place on all water towers and within the booster station that checked water pressure at various points. Also, Mr. Culver noted that if any hydrants were spewing water, the public would alert city staff accordingly.
5. Approve Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan (CSWMP) 2017 Update Environmental Specialist Ryan Johnson introduced Ms. Rebecca Nestingten of SEH, Inc. for Meeting #3 of this updated draft of the CSWMP, and to receive public input on this iteration. Ms. Nestingten reviewed the goals of the update including implementation of new and innovative ideas, an update of goals and policies and an issues assessment, and alignment of the CSWMP with the three watershed districts within which various areas of Roseville operated.
Ms. Nestingten noted that public comment had also been sought through an electronic survey as well as on the former Speak Up! Roseville.org portal, with an unfortunate response rate of five responses as of October 18, 2016 and only sixteen as of January 13, 2017. Of those few responses received, Ms. Nestingten reported that the areas of highest concern were flooding drainage and surface water management quality and protection. Ms. Nestingten reported that these responses were similar to other surveys performed by SEH; and addressed concern about stormwater runoff from streets and parking lots, construction site erosion, and shoreland land uses.
Ms. Nestingten reported that the draft plan update had been emailed to the PWETC and City Council prior to tonight’s meeting, and also posted on the city’s website. Ms. Nestingten further reported that this latest draft plan update since the 2013 plan was based on feedback to-date from the PWETC and goals and policies discussed by them at Meeting #2, and any city updates and demographic changes, best management practices (BMP’s) through the city, and overhaul of the city’s CIP to-date; all key highlight areas with most of the figures updated for clarity. Discussion Member Trainor noted that even with the weather changes and increased intensity in rain events being experienced references in the plan update were still from 2006 studies, and suggested referencing more current studies and building on that data and determinations as to whether that current data is accurate or if new studies provided updated information.
Referencing the lack of survey participation and public comment received results seemed futile and insignificant; Member Heimerl expressed hope that moving forward the city would seek ways to obtain additional public feedback on the plan and impacts to the community. With the desire to obtain sufficient data to form a good opinion of resident needs and wants, Member Heimerl noted the need for additional sources and better ways to communicate to obtain that feedback to inform the plan earlier in the process.
City Engineer Freihammer stated that staff was open to any and all ideas from the PWETC as well as the efforts expended by the city’s communications staff in seeking that feedback from city residents.
Mr. Johnson suggested expanding efforts on social media to increase that communication from residents especially for water quality concerns that were shared among residents in the community and how they related to and impacted this plan and quality of life for residents.
Member Heimerl suggested that timing for receiving that feedback may be the answer in seeking it during other events (e.g. Day in the Park, Rosefest, etc.) when people were gathered and getting the community’s pulse at public events during the summer when people are out and about. Member Heimerl suggested setting up booths at Central Park during those events, and perhaps focusing on different issues or topics and possibly in advance of important upcoming issues or areas of interest.
Chair Cihacek agreed that other opportunities for obtaining data during public gatherings or meetings may help create a larger data source over a broader spectrum for tracking over the ten-year period from one plan update to another versus waiting to gather that input in the year the plan is due.
Member Wozniak suggested reaching out to lake management associations for their input.
Mr. Johnson responded that there were several in Roseville (e.g. Lake Owasso and Lake McCarron’s Associations), advising that historically those groups had provided comment (e.g. at the last update in 2013), but this year neither electronic or other efforts when posted had received that input, nor having people show up at informational meetings from those lake associations.
Chair Cihacek suggested person-to-person information shifts may be needed for future efforts. Chair Cihacek asked if individual PWETC comments previously submitted had been incorporated into this most current draft of the CSWMP.
Ms. Nestingten responded that they had been received, but not yet incorporated until after tonight’s meeting.
Member Wozniak asked if there was a way to raise the awareness and expand efforts with residents on area lakes currently without an association to point out some benefits in them forming their own lake management groups to improve water quality. Member Wozniak asked what steps staff took to make homeowners aware of lake quality issues in this area.
Mr. Johnson responded that homeowners along lakeshores must be aware of the issues faced by lake bodies (e.g. McCarron’s and Owasso, neither of which are impaired right now) and impacts to property values when lakes are designated as impaired or when their water quality if considered good. As water quality degrades, Mr. Johnson noted that property values decreased as well, but unfortunately homeowners typically didn’t become concerned until a lake became impaired. Mr. Johnson advised that he wasn’t aware of any other lake homeowner associations in Roseville, since as an example, a considerable portion of Little Lake Johanna was owned by the University of Northwestern. In response to Chair Cihacek, Mr. Johnson reported that Langton Lake and Lake Josephine were mostly publicly owned by the city and county.
Mr. Johnson advised that the next steps once this draft of the CSWMP was updated by SEH would be to move to public agency review.
At the request of Member Trainer, Mr. Johnson clarified that the figures included in the plan had been recently updated and formats changed for easier readability.
Mr. Freihammer opined that the last four pages of the plan were the most important of the plan providing focus areas that would be improved upon by the city over the next decade.
Chair Cihacek asked staff to explain Figure 14, special flood hazard area.
Ms. Nestingten responded that this was an official Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard insurance rate may, with Roseville having four such areas; with Zone AE providing a more detailed study of the area and assigned a base flood elevation as noted; and Zone A is an approximately flood area without a base flood area. Ms. Nestingten advised that the remainder of Roseville is outside the 500 year annual chance flood area and therefore not specifically mapped by FEMA since it was considered to have no regional flood concern and only involving more localized flood issues as designated in Figure 19.
Chair Cihacek asked that for future reference by the PWETC, overlay information (e.g. Figures 9 and 19) be provided to address land use and surface water issues and for future presentations (e.g. parking lot issues) that provided the whole picture as part of the PWETC’s basic data to reference and incorporate accordingly.
Mr. Johnson noted that all the information and figures were GIS-based and used by SEH to provide this information, and with those figures and maps available electronically, staff could layer them as desired by the PWETC (e.g. land use, contours, storm sewer locations, geology, etc.) and all layered depending on the particular discussion being held.
Motion Member Trainor moved, Member Heimerl seconded, recommending to the City Council approval of the draft Comprehensive Surface Water Management Plan (CSWMP) as presented for update and agency review
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion carried.
6. Stormwater Management Standards for Parking Lots City Engineer Freihammer noted that detailed information had been previously forwarded to the PWETC prior to tonight’s presentation by Environmental Specialist Johnson.
Mr. Johnson advised that tonight’s presentation, last discussed at the December 2016 PWETC meeting as detailed in the staff report and Attachment A, had been updated based on that discussion and individual comments and preferences of the PWETC at that time. Mr. Johnson noted that one of those updates included the definition of “land disturbance,” using the existing policy for reference, and new option 1 and 2 respectively less and more restrictive in nature. Mr. Johnson noted that Option 1 was similar to the current policy, but provided more clarification; and Option 2 was more restrictive and required treatment when parking lot base material was exposed (e.g. through BMP installation or via payment in to the city’s stormwater management fund) as applicable. Mr. Johnson reviewed Option 3 that would have the city potentially providing support (e.g. design and/or financial assistance) for installation of BMP’s.
Mr. Johnson noted that tonight’s presentation sought additional PWETC feedback to move forward, including citywide or designated zones for stormwater management standards for parking lots. Mr. Johnson advised that this could mean retaining the status quo with a less restrictive option with clarified language as suggested (Option 1) or to push toward a more restrictive cutting-edge (Option 2) beyond watershed district requirements at this point and thus putting Roseville in a leadership role to push stormwater mitigation for parking lots in the community.
Chair Cihacek referenced Figure 19, the chronic flooding issue map; and asked how many such areas could be solved with a more restrictive option.
Mr. Johnson responded that none would be solved if using Option 1 either as any points for chronic flooding areas (e.g. Highway 36 at County Road B and at Fairview Avenue) would require multiple projects from Roselawn Avenue to Highway 36 to make any impact. While any parking lot improving stormwater management on their sites wouldn’t solve the overall issue, Mr. Johnson advised that it would move one project closer to stopping or alleviating the broader issue.
Member Trainor spoke in support of Option 1.
Member Seigler stated that he could support Option 2 other than for the problem with “removals;” since if a property owner pulled off the pavement resulting in pollutants on the base needing mitigation, the tendency would be to simply cover it over again to avoid a big and expensive problem. Therefore, Member Seigler spoke in support of Option 1 as being more realistic.
Under Member Seigler’s scenario, Chair Cihacek suggested going with Option 2 without “removal.”
However, Member Seigler stated that any oil leakage of any kind would create the mandate for the property owner to remove it resulting in a massive expense.
Mr. Johnson clarified that in either case, it would apply whether permit triggered or not.
Member Seigler opined that if the property owner exposed an issue, they would need to pave over it or realize a bigger expense.
Member Heimerl stated that he was leaning toward Option 1 with the recommended clarified language. However, Member Heimerl noted that in looking long-term, it was important to realize that more was contributing to the stormwater runoff issue than simply parking lots. As an example, Member Heimerl noted the comment to look at the number of driveways feeding into a street beyond parking lots for a realistic view of the actual impact of one or the other. Member Heimerl suggested that a more meaningful impact may be to encourage or incent keeping residential runoff from driveways – or parking lots – from going into the street with everyone sharing the responsibility. Member Heimerl stated that he hated to see businesses delay or avoid taking care of their parking lots due to a fee for them to do so, opining that wouldn’t be beneficial to the city or to any Roseville residents. However, if property owners – whether residential or commercial – were made to realize the impacts of that runoff, it may provide an incentive or at a minimum that awareness may slow down runoff into the stormwater system.
City Engineer Freihammer agreed that the problem was a result of all runoff, with some residential neighborhoods having an issue simply due to the impervious issues on their lots from driveways and other structures or surfaces.
Member Heimerl stated that he would like to see Roseville more in the forefront for leadership (Option 2), but also preferred to see the focus on a great citywide and comprehensive plan to attack citywide flooding with everyone involved, not only those with parking lots. While supporting a city policy to encourage business owners redoing their parking lots to also fix stormwater drainage issues at the same time, Member Heimerl admitted that he wasn’t sure how to put such a policy together, but volunteered to assist staff in drafting such a policy. As an example, Member Heimerl noted that even Eagle Scouts could be recruited to look at projects to impact the community. Member Heimerl suggested looking at data to put together a potential plan for implementation in the city that would have a tremendous impact on drainage issues, but result in a different option beyond Option 2 as currently presented.
Member Wozniak agreed with the comments and suggestions of Member Heimerl. While initially supporting the opportunity to improve stormwater management citywide by going with Option 2, Member Wozniak noted that at the same time he agreed with Member Heimerl in questioning why a business owner’s parking lot became responsible for addressing the broader stormwater control issue when it represented only one of many impervious elements in that area. Member Wozniak noted that rainfall didn’t distinguish land uses and whether it was one parking lot or ten driveways creating a similar area of impervious surface. Therefore, Member Wozniak opined there must be some way to share the burden beyond just addressing parking lots. While unsure of the answer at this time, Member Wozniak stated his preference that Roseville be on the cutting-edge in stormwater management efforts to benefit the entire community. With the increasing intensity of storms being realized, Member Wozniak noted the need to do something now, questioning when the next opportunity may arise to look at the issue. Member Wozniak opined that other sources of runoff needed to be taken into account, in other words any impervious surfaces, whether driveways, patios, parking lots or structures, and to spread the word that everyone has a role in controlling that runoff.
Mr. Johnson clarified that the city had some policies already in place to address impervious coverage on a lot and what did or didn’t trigger a permit, particularly on the residential side. However, Mr. Johnson noted that while there were some comparisons between residential and commercial properties, the extent of that coverage at a higher percentage for commercial and typically on larger lots, made a parking lot situation easier to work with since it was more in the open.
Member Wozniak asked if that meant there was a limit on residential properties but not as much of a limit for commercial properties.
Mr. Freihammer responded that there was an upper limit on all zoned properties throughout the community; but noted that commercial properties were well beyond the maximum 30% impervious coverage for residential properties.
Since commercial businesses differed in their purpose and role versus that of residential parcels, Chair Cihacek asked if further consideration was needed as to whether or not the maximum 85% impervious coverage was appropriate for commercial sites. Chair Cihacek stated that he was leaning toward Option 1, in not wanting to be more restrictive without a broader more comprehensive policy. Chair Cihacek opined that part of this involved watershed district rules to define city policies. In the future, Chair Cihacek advised that he would entertain development of a comprehensive set of requirements with the three watershed districts and the city. Chair Cihacek questioned if it was fair to not require the burden to be shared citywide, especially considering that many commercial properties in Roseville are older than the residential properties that had developed adjacent to and around them.
Without objection, Chair Cihacek summarized that the PWETC’s consensus was for Option 1; with the caveat that they supported further study to develop a more comprehensive way to deal with the stormwater management issue citywide, preferably in the very near future and incorporating additional research by staff as per this discussion.
Mr. Freihammer thanked the PWETC for their direction; advising that staff would make the definition change to provide further clarification for Option 1; and also work with respective watershed district staff toward the goal of more consistent requirements of a more comprehensive nature whether or not they were more restrictive than those currently in place, and with the city’s requirements then matching those restrictions. Mr. Freihammer noted that ideally the city would like to move in concert with the watershed districts as well as any other authorities to make it easier to manage things from a regulatory perspective rather than having four different sets of rules. Therefore, Mr. Freihammer suggested the first step may be for a listening session of those parties to inform a process moving forward.
Member Wozniak noted that several individual members of the PWETC were open to a more aggressive policy; but also noted the need to defer to watershed districts as the experts in the field, questioning why the city would choose to take a leadership role outside of their expertise. Therefore, Member Wozniak suggested that the city work with them to seek a more aggressive stance in controlling stormwater, which should help achieve the goal or at least move in that direction. Public Comment An unidentified speaker (off microphone) in the audience suggested incentives in addressing residential driveways by installation of rain gardens whenever possible to help mitigate drainage on their property. The speaker stated that his property was over the 35% impervious coverage permit area. The speaker advised that he had considered putting in a rain garden to capture more, but at this time didn’t do so as their was no incentive to encourage him to do anything. However, if there was an incentive for residents, the speaker opined that would be helpful, whether or not it was feasible for the city.
In response to the unidentified speaker, Public Works Director Culver advised that the city had implemented a stormwater credit program several years ago; but clarified that it wasn’t necessarily intended for residential properties since their annual stormwater management fees were minimal to begin with (approximately $44/year). However, for commercial properties, Mr. Culver reported that stormwater management mitigation could result in hundreds of dollars in fee credits, thus creating more of an incentive; thus the city’s implementation of the credit program for commercial properties installing a BMP to make the project larger than needed to obtain credit for the portion not required and as an incentive. While the city had attempted to incent BMP’s in the past, Mr. Culver agreed with the speaker that there wasn’t much incentive for residential properties. Mr. Culver noted that one concern he had with rain gardens as a mitigation for residential properties currently over their maximum 30% impervious coverage was that at some point in the future, property owners may change and the new owner may not have the same interests in maintaining the BMP. Even though the city has a five-year inspection process for BMP’s to ensure their maintenance, Mr. Culver noted that a lot could happen during that timeframe that impacted the overall city stormwater drainage system. With commercial properties, Mr. Culver noted that they had more resources to maintain stormwater management systems.
7. Items for Next Meeting – March 28, 2017
Discussion ensued regarding upcoming agendas beyond those listed in the staff report; including future tax increment financing (TIF) update and education for the PWETC (March agenda) and as part of the broader Capital Improvement Program (CIP) overview; election of officers (April agenda); and digging deeper into stormwater management concerns as per tonight’s discussion.
Chair Cihacek expressed interest in staff providing the PWETC with copies of current policies for residential and commercial stormwater management, including city code, watershed district(s) requirements, and other regulatory arena considerations and mandates. Chair Cihacek stated that this included current gaps, areas that were more or less restrictive, and other initial thoughts to start that conversation (April or May agenda). At the request of Member Seigler, staff was asked to also provide any old or new regulations under the new U. S. President that may be revised or anything in city code that was relevant and/or needing review to determine if still valid.
To save meeting time, Chair Cihacek suggested individual commissioners do that research and review outside of the meeting and then bring any comments and/or suggestions to the PWETC when that discussion was scheduled on a future agenda, especially if they found anything outdated or needing revision.
Mr. Culver noted that many of those code provisions fell under the Planning Commission umbrella. As part of that, Mr. Culver referenced the city’s subdivision ordinance currently under review for revisions, including that section of code and others that may be involved. At this time, Mr. Culver noted that city code included detailed engineering requirements for new developments and subdivisions; with the current revision stripping that language from ordinance and putting it into a more manageable engineering manual to allow more flexibility in making changes and updates for modern practices outside of an ordinance amendment and formal public hearing. Mr. Culver noted that this made city code cleaner and less complex.
Mr. Culver noted an upcoming discussion (April agenda) for the PWETC would be the transportation plan update as part of the larger comprehensive plan update; with proposals due later this week for a consultant to guide the work, anticipated to be under contract by late March or April with the PWETC then asked to engage in that process. At the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver clarified that the consultant would identify which PWETC meetings would be targeted for public input as part of that process; with staff working in conjunction with them to identify which PWETC meetings made the most sense in the overall process. Mr. Culver noted that this update would coincide with public engagement efforts and other public meetings for the comprehensive plan update. Mr. Culver noted that there would also be electronic surveys for this process, hoping for a better success rate than with that of the CSWMP process. At that point, Mr. Culver advised that a draft would be provided for the PWETC and public to respond to at a formal public hearing, anticipated for late summer or early fall.
Further discussion included the status of solar energy efforts; the city’s space needs study anticipated by mid-June (June PWETC agenda to review architectural recommendations); and current status of the city’s LED conversion – interior and exterior.
Member Heimerl suggested a summer field trip with longer daylight hours (May or July agendas) for citywide projects of interest to the PWETC. Member Seigler suggested it may be of interest to the PWETC to view the Metropolitan Council’s sanitary sewer line replacement project; with Mr. Culver clarifying that the bids were anticipated for award in May and the earliest work start date anticipated in October of 2017 through the spring of 2019, opining there wouldn’t be much to observe before the winter months.
Member Wozniak suggested review of Ramsey County’s organics collection program; and research by staff to see if they had yet to identify any sites in and around Roseville for expansion. Member Wozniak suggested another fieldtrip could be to the Washington-Ramsey County Recycling facility in Newport, MN.
With only Member Seigler having attended a tour of the Eureka MRF, Chair Cihacek suggested that may be a good fall fieldtrip after the upcoming busier agenda months had been completed.
Chair Cihacek suggested a policy overview, including educating the PWETC on where the money comes from and how it is designated, as well as an inventory of stormwater management for residential and commercial properties as researched by staff (April agenda). Chair Cihacek opined that this would serve as good background on the next step conversations planned over the summer and inform the comprehensive plan with a citywide perspective.
In that vein and at the request of Member Wozniak, Mr. Culver reviewed the quarterly fee paid by single-family homes of a certain size $11/quarter - $45/year), with multi-family and apartment buildings, as well as commercial buildings, paying a much larger fee.
8. Adjourn Member Trainor moved, Member Wozniak seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 7:43 p.m.
Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion carried.
|
|
|