Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 7307 Approving Design Issues for the 2008 2009 Street Utility ProjectItem No. 7B Meeting Date: July 28, 2008 Type of Business: CB WK: Work Session; PH: Public Hearing; CA: Consent Agenda; CB: Council Business City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To:Honorable Mayor and City Council From:Joe Rhein, Consulting Engineer Item Title/Subject:Resolution 7307 Approving Various Design Issues for the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project Background: On February 11, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution 7223 creating the Streets and Utilities Committee. On March 24, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution 7245 appointing the members to the Streets and Utilities Committee. On April 21, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee held their first meeting. Their second meeting was held May 19, 2008, at which they scheduled a Public Meeting to review several specific design issues on the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project and request public input. On June 14, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee held the Public Meeting to review several specific design issues on the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project and to get feedback from the public. Twenty feedback forms were received following the meeting. On June 16, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee met to review the results of the Public Meeting. The Committee adopted recommendations on a number of specific design issues, for forwarding to the City Council. A copy of the approved minutes of the June 16, 2008 Streets and Utilities Committee meeting is attached to this Staff Report for reference. On July 7, 2008 the City Council reviewed and discussed the recommendations of the Streets and Utilities Committee as an agenda item of their Work Session. Members of the Streets and Utilities Committee were present to participate in the discussion with the City Council. A copy of the Staff Report prepared for the July 7, 2008 City Council Work Session is attached to this Staff Report for reference. Discussion: Based on the actions of the Streets and Utilities Committee and the discussion of the July 7, 2008 City Council Work Session, the recommendations on several specific design issues regarding the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project are being presented to the City Council for consideration of formal adoption via resolution. Given the information provided in the attached reference documents, only a brief review of each design issue is stated below. The issues are not listed in any particular order of priority. All votes of the Streets and Utilities Committee were taken during their meeting of June 16, 2008 unless otherwise noted. 1. Jackson Drive Non-Standard Street Width Jackson Drive between Laport Drive and Sherwood Road is presently 21 feet wide. The Streets and Utilities Committee recommends (by a unanimous 7-0 vote at their May 19, 2008 meeting) that Jackson Drive be constructed to a width of 24-feet from face of curb to face of curb. 2. Fairchild Avenue Non-Standard Street Width Fairchild Avenue between Sherwood Road and Hillview Road is presently 22 feet wide. The Streets and Utilities Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that Fairchild Avenue be constructed to a width of 24-feet from face of curb to face of curb. 3. Red Oak Drive Non-Standard Street Width Red Oak Drive from Hillview Road to Long Lake Road is presently 30 feet wide, consisting of two 11-foot wide driving lanes and 4-foot wide paved shoulders. Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the road; however, it is rarely utilized. This segment of Red Oak Drive has been designated by the City of Mounds View on the Municipal State Aid Street System as administered by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Therefore it must be designed and reconstructed to meet State Aid requirements in order to receive State Aid funding. State Aid standards require minimum 11-foot wide driving lanes and 8-foot wide parking lanes where parking is allowed. The Streets and Utilities Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that Red Oak Drive be constructed to a width of 32-feet from face of curb to face of curb. The 32-foot width consists of two 11-foot driving lanes, an 8-foot wide parking lane on one side of the road, and a 2-foot wide reaction area between the face of curb and driving lane (also a State Aid requirement) on the other side of the road. This would allow parking on one side of the street only, with parking prohibited on the other. The side of the street on which to allow parking is not yet decided, and will be determined through further development of the street design. A subsequent “No Parking” resolution will be presented for consideration by the City Council at the time when the design details have been determined. MnDOT will require a copy of the approved “No Parking” resolution as part of their review and approval process of the plan for Red Oak Drive. The Committee further recommends (by a unanimous vote) that “chokers” be used as appropriate at key locations along the segment Red Oak Drive from Hillview Road to Long Lake Drive to reduce the width in an effort to produce traffic calming and reduce speeds. The final number and locations of the chokers is not yet decided, and will be determined through further development of the street design. 4. Red Oak Drive Pedestrian Corridor Red Oak Drive has been designated as a potential pedestrian/bicycle corridor in the City’s Comprehensive Sidewalk/Trailway Plan. The Streets and Utilities Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that the single 8-foot wide parking lane provided on Red Oak Drive also be used to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. No separate on-street designated pedestrian/bicyclist lane or boulevard sidewalk is recommended. However, short segments of sidewalk may be needed to cross the “chokers” identified in the previous item. 5. Hillview Road Non-Standard Street Width Hillview Road from Long Lake Road to Fairchild Avenue is presently 42 feet wide, consisting of two driving lanes and a full-width shoulder along each side. Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the road, with the exception of along the south side of the road between Greenwood Drive and Long lake Road. Hillview Road from Long Lake Road to Red Oak Drive also serves as a route for buses operated by Metro Transit. The segment of Hillview Road from Long Lake Road to Red Oak Drive has been designated by the City of Mounds View on the Municipal State Aid Street System as administered by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). Therefore it must be designed and reconstructed to meet State Aid requirements in order to receive State Aid funding. The Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that Hillview Road be constructed to a width of 40-feet from face of curb to face of curb. This would allow two 12-foot wide driving lanes and an 8-foot wide parking lane on each side of the road, as recommended by State Aid. Locations where parking is currently allowed and prohibited along Hillview Road are to be unchanged from their current condition. 6. Hillview Road Pedestrian Corridor Hillview Road from Long Lake Road to Red Oak Drive has been designated as a potential pedestrian/bicycle corridor in the City’s Comprehensive Sidewalk/Trailway Plan. The Streets and Utilities Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that the 8-foot wide parking lane provided on each side of Hillview Road also be used to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. No separate on-street designated pedestrian/bicyclist lane or boulevard sidewalk is recommended. 7. Hillview Park Potential Parking Areas Hillview Park is a City-owned park located north of Hillview Road between Greenwood Drive and Long Lake Road that contains multiple public use facilities (i.e. playground equipment, hockey and skating rink, softball field, and shelter). Currently, there are 15 on-street parallel parking stalls on the north side of Hillview Road adjacent to the park. Similarly, there are 11 on-street parking stalls along the east side of Greenwood Drive. No parking is allowed on the west side of Greenwood Drive across from the park, and as previously mentioned along the south side of Hillview Road from Greenwood Drive to Long Lake Road. The Streets and Utilities Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that 27 angled parking stalls be provided on the north side of Hillview Road adjacent to Hillview Park, and that a “bump out” lane for parallel parking be provided on the east side of Greenwood Drive along Hillview Park. The Streets and Utilities Committee passed a subsequent recommendation (by a unanimous 6-0 vote on June 30, 2008) that the costs for the angled parking on Hillview Road and the bump out on Greenwood Drive be financed by the Park Dedication Fund. 8. Fairchild Avenue/Hillview Road Access to County Road 10 The intersection of Hillview Road and Fairchild Avenue currently functions as a right-in / right-out access to County Road 10. The irregular intersection configuration that exists today does not meet current design standards. The Streets and Utilities Committee recommends (by a vote of 5 in favor, 0 opposed, and 1 abstention) that the existing access be closed and that Fairchild Avenue and Hillview Road be connected at this location by means of a curve. Reference Materials Numerous background documents on each design issue noted above have been prepared, and have been included in the meeting packets of the Streets and Utilities Committee. It is the understanding of Staff that the City Council has received copies of all meeting packets of the Streets and Utilities Committee. Please refer to those documents from the Committee meetings as necessary. Only two recent and pertinent documents are included with this Staff Report: o The Staff Report from the July 7, 2008 City Council Work Session, upon which this Staff Report was based. That Staff Report includes expanded discussion of each issue along with graphics. o The approved minutes from the June 16, 2008 Streets and Utilities Committee meeting, at which the majority of these issues were discussed and subsequently voted upon. The corrected minutes were approved on July 21, 2008 and distributed on July 22, 2008. Resolution: Resolution 7307 has been prepared in accordance with the above discussion and the recommendations adopted by the Streets and Utilities Committee. The Resolution is attached to this Staff Report for consideration by the City Council. Each issue has been identified separately in the Resolution, in the event that Council wants to revise the specific parameters of any individual issue. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution 7307 approving various design issues for the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project as stated in the Resolution. Respectfully Submitted, Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer Attachments: x Resolution 7307 x Staff Report from July 7, 2008 City Council Work Session x Approved minutes from June 16, 2008 Streets and Utilities Committee Meeting RESOLUTION 7307 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA APPROVING VARIOUS DESIGN ISSUES FOR THE 2009 – 2010 STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7223 adopted by the City Council on Feb. 11, 2008, the Streets and Utilities Committee was created; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 7245 adopted by the City Council on March 24, 2008, the members of the Streets and Utilities Committee were appointed; and WHEREAS, on June 14, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee held a Public Meeting to review various design issues of the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project and gather public input; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2008 the Streets and Utilities Committee adopted recommendations for various design issues of the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, on July 7, 2008 the City Council discussed the recommendations of the Streets and Utilities Committee for various design issues of the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mounds View, Ramsey County, Minnesota as follows: 1.The width of Jackson Drive from Laport Drive to Sherwood Road as reconstructed under the 2009–2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project shall be 24-feet from face of curb to face of curb. 2.The width of Fairchild Avenue from Sherwood Road to Hillview Road as reconstructed under the 2009–2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project shall be 24-feet from face of curb to face of curb. 3.Red Oak Drive from Long Lake Road to Hillview Road as reconstructed under the 2009–2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project shall include the following: a.Width shall be 32-feet from face of curb to face of curb. b.A parking lane shall be provided on one side only. The side of the road is yet to be determined. c.The parking lane shall also serve as a pedestrian/bicycle corridor. d.“Chokers” shall be used at appropriate locations to provide traffic calming. The size and location of the “chokers” are yet to be determined. 4.Hillview Road from Long Lake Road to Red Oak Drive as reconstructed under the 2009–2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project shall include the following: a.Width shall be 40-feet from face of curb to face of curb. b.Parking lanes shall be provided along both sides of the road. c.The parking lanes shall also serve as a pedestrian/bicycle corridor. d.No change is made from the current condition in regard to locations where parking is allowed and prohibited. 5.Angled parking shall be provided along the north side of Hillview Road as reconstructed under the 2009–2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project from Long Lake Road to Greenwood Drive. a.The angled parking will replace the parking lane in this location. b.The maximum number of stalls shall be constructed. Anticipated amount is 27. c.An off-street concrete sidewalk shall be constructed at this location to provide the pedestrian/bicycle corridor. d.This improvement shall be financed from the Park Dedication Fund. 6.A “bump out” lane for parallel parking shall be constructed along the east side of Greenwood Drive as reconstructed under the 2009–2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project along the frontage of Hillview Park. This improvement shall be financed from the Park Dedication Fund. 7.The access to County Road 10 at Hillview Road / Fairchild Avenue shall be removed as part of the 2009–2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project. Fairchild Avenue and Hillview Road shall be connected to form a continuous route between Sherwood Road and Red Oak Drive. Adopted this 28th day of July 2008. (ATTEST)____________________________________ Rob Marty, Mayor (SEAL)____________________________________ James Ericson, City Administrator Item No. 2 Meeting Date: July 7, 2008 Type of Business: WS City Administrator Review _______ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Joe Rhein, Consulting Engineer Item Title/Subject: Streets and Utilities Committee: Recommendations on Various Design Issues for 2009-2010- Street and Utility Improvement Project Background: On February 11, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution 7223 creating the Streets and Utilities Committee. On March 24, 2008 the City Council approved Resolution 7245 appointing the members to the Streets and Utilities Committee. The Streets and Utilities Committee held their first meeting on April 21, 2008, and has also met on May 19, 2008, June 16, 2008, and June 30, 2008. The Streets and Utilities Committee also held a Public Meeting on June 14, 2008 to review several specific design issues on the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project and to get feedback from the public. Discussion: Through the course of the meetings held thus far, the Streets and Utilities Committee has reached a decision on several issues regarding the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project, and has passed votes on recommendations for those issues. A summary of the recommendations coming forward to the City Council from the Streets and Utilities Committee are as stated below. The recommendations are not listed in any particular order of priority. 1. Jackson Drive Non-Standard Street Width Jackson Drive, between Laport Drive and Sherwood Road, is presently 21 feet wide. The adopted standard residential street width of 28 feet, from face of curb to face of curb, may be excessive in this location given its short length, minimal traffic, and since only one side of the street is developed (two homes) and no further development will occur. Given these facts, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 7-0 vote) that Jackson Drive be constructed to a width of 24- feet from face of curb to face of curb. The 24-foot width allows for proper emergency vehicle access. Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 2 2. Fairchild Avenue Non-Standard Street Width Fairchild Avenue, between Sherwood Road and Hillview Road, is presently 22 feet wide. The adopted standard width of 28 feet, from face of curb to face of curb, may be excessive in this location as well given the fact that the right-of-way for this segment of Fairchild Avenue varies in width from 33 feet to 48 feet. The typical right-of-way width for residential streets in this neighborhood is 60 to 66 feet. A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting. Of the 18 residents who responded, 17 wanted Fairchild Avenue to be constructed no wider than 24 feet (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table). The 24-foot width would preserve the character of Fairchild Avenue and minimize tree disturbance. The 24-foot width also allows for adequate emergency vehicle access. At the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting, a community member informed the Committee that the street was originally made more narrow than is typical through a legal petition process decades ago. Though the street length is longer than Jackson Drive, most homeowners have very long driveways, so on- street parking is not a common occurrence, making a narrower than standard street acceptable. For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that Fairchild Avenue be constructed to a width of 24-feet from face of curb to face of curb. 3. Red Oak Drive Non-Standard Street Width Red Oak Drive, from Hillview Road to Long Lake Road, is presently 30 feet wide, consisting of two 11-foot wide driving lanes and 4-foot wide paved shoulders. Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the road; however, it is rarely utilized. This segment of Red Oak Drive is designated as a Municipal State Aid road, and therefore, must be reconstructed to meet MnDOT State Aid standards in order to received State Aid funding. State Aid standards require minimum 11- foot wide driving lanes and 8-foot wide parking lanes where parking is allowed. A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting requesting feedback related to parking accommodations. A slight majority favor no parking on either side of Red Oak Drive (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table). Although cars are rarely parked on Red Oak Drive, there are occasions when it would be useful to have on-street parking (i.e. garage sales, holiday gatherings, etc.). City Administrator Ericson noted that if the streets were to be constructed without parking lanes, special permits would not likely be issued for neighborhood special occasions/needs. Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 3 For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that Red Oak Drive be constructed to a width of 32-feet from face of curb to face of curb. The 32-foot width would consist of two 11-foot driving lanes, an 8-foot wide parking lane on one side of the road, and a 2-foot wide reaction area between the face of curb and driving lane (also a State Aid requirement) on the other side of the road. This would allow parking on one side of the street only, with parking prohibited on the other. This width also closely matches the existing street width, resulting in minimal tree disturbance. The recommended side of the street on which to allow parking has yet to be determined. Because speeding has been an issue on this road, the Committee further recommends that “chokers” be used, as appropriate, at key locations on the street to reduce the width in an effort to produce traffic calming and reduce speeds. (Refer to the graphics on the next page for examples of a choker). The Committee discussed that the narrowing of County Road H2 has not resulted in any noticeable traffic calming, so they felt that narrowing Red Oak to 26 feet (the narrowest width allowed by State Aid) would not be wise and might actually be less safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Committee has requested that a preliminary design be performed per the characteristics stated above, for further review and comment. A draft design will be presented at the July 21 Streets and Utilities Committee meeting. 4. Red Oak Drive Pedestrian Corridor Red Oak Drive has been designated as a potential pedestrian/bicycle corridor in the City’s Comprehensive Sidewalk/Trailway Plan. A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting requesting feedback related to pedestrian accommodations. Approximately 62% of the residents were in favor of some form of on-street pedestrian corridor (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table). Presently, the 4-foot wide shoulders are used for parking and also by pedestrians and bicyclists. Some Committee members feel that having a pedestrian corridor is important. For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that the single 8-foot wide parking lane provided on Red Oak Drive also be used to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. No separate on-street designated pedestrian/bicyclist lane or boulevard sidewalk is recommended. However, short segments of sidewalk may be needed to cross the “chokers” mentioned in Item 3 above. Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 4 Examples of typical mid-block chokers. Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 5 5. Hillview Road Non-Standard Street Width Hillview Road, from Long Lake Road to Fairchild Avenue, is presently 42 feet wide, consisting of two 13-foot wide driving lanes and 8-foot wide shoulders. Parking is currently allowed on both sides of the road. This segment of Hillview Road is designated as a Municipal State Aid road, and therefore, must be reconstructed to meet MnDOT State Aid standards in order to received State Aid funding. A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting requesting feedback related to parking accommodations. Half of those who responded wanted parking on one side only. The other half wanted parking on both sides (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table). To accommodate parking on both sides, the road would be constructed to a width of 40 feet, which closely matches the existing width. Hillview Road is a bus route, so the wider width is currently working well for the neighborhood. The committee discussed options for Hillview at the June 16, 2008 meeting and came to the consensus that most residents wanted Hillview to continue as is, without changes. For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that Hillview Road be constructed to a width of 40-feet from face of curb to face of curb. This would allow two 12-foot wide driving lanes and an 8-foot wide parking lane on each side of the road, as recommended by State Aid. This closely matches the current configuration of Hillview Road. 6. Hillview Road Pedestrian Corridor Hillview Road has been designated as a potential pedestrian/bicycle corridor in the City’s Comprehensive Sidewalk/Trailway Plan. A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting requesting feedback related to pedestrian accommodations. The majority of respondents were in favor of on-street shared use accommodations (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table), which is how it currently functions. For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that no separate on street designated lanes or boulevard sidewalks be provided for bicycle / pedestrian movements along Hillview Road. The Committee recommends that bicycle and pedestrian traffic continue to function essentially as it currently exists, using the parking lanes. 7. Hillview Park Potential Parking Areas Hillview Park is a City-owned park located north of Hillview Road between Greenwood Drive and Long Lake Road that contains multiple public use facilities (i.e. playground equipment, hockey and skating rink, softball field, and shelter). Currently, there are 15 on-street parallel parking stalls on the north side of Hillview Road adjacent to the park. Similarly, there are 11 parking stalls on the east side of Greenwood Drive. No parking is allowed on the south side of Hillview Road adjacent to the park and the west side of Greenwood Drive adjacent to the park. Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 6 A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting requesting feedback related to additional parking stalls. The response was split between citizens that wanted parking added and those that wanted no change (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table). City staff feels that parking is deficient at Hillview Park, particularly during the youth softball/baseball games. Adding off-street parking would not only expand the amount of parking spaces, but would also improve the safety of the parking. (Refer to the graphic below). Proposed off-street parking improvements at Hillview Park For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) that 27 angled parking stalls be provided on the north side of Hillview Road adjacent to Hillview Park. The Committee also recommends that a “bump out” lane for parallel parking be provided on the east side of Greenwood Drive along Hillview Park. The “bump out” would decrease the number of parking spaces by one or two. However, it would improve safety by minimizing congestion on Greenwood Drive, which will be reconstructed to the City standard width of 28 feet. With high price of oil, the Committee is concerned that the costs for this project and the future reconstruction projects could be higher than originally anticipated. The Committee is concerned about keeping this project within budget and ensuring that all future reconstruction projects can be completed within budget. The Committee is also very concerned with the recent actions of the State Legislature (Omnibus Tax Bill) which has the potential for changing the financial Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 7 model for the entire 10 year Streets Financing Plan. The Committee has requested that Finance Director Mark Beers make a complete financial report to the Committee at the July 21, 2008 Streets and Utilities Committee meeting. The estimated cost for the additional parking spaces recommended above is approximately $71,500. Hillview Park is a City-owned park that is used by more than just the surrounding neighborhood. Therefore it would be appropriate to use the Park Dedication Fund to help finance the improvements. It should be noted that the estimated costs associated with the angled parking on Hillview Road include costs to construct a concrete boulevard sidewalk along the north side of Hillview Road at Hillview Park. The boulevard sidewalk would help avoid conflict between the pedestrian traffic and the proposed angled parking stalls. For these reasons, at the June 30, 2008 Streets and Utilities Committee meeting, the Committee passed a motion (by a unanimous 6-0 vote) recommending that the costs for the angled parking on Hillview Road and the bump out on Greenwood Drive be financed by the Park Dedication Fund, rather than the Street and Utility Improvement project. The Committee also reviewed materials from Committee Member Amundsen concerning back-in/head-out angled parking. No vote was taken on issue however. 8. Fairchild Avenue/Hillview Road Access to County Road 10 The intersection of Hillview Road and Fairchild Avenue currently functions as a right-in / right-out access to County Road 10. The irregular intersection configuration that exists today does not meet current design standards. Although accidents have not been an issue, there have been many close calls as witnessed by local residents. City and County staff recommend closing the access to County Road 10. Peak hour (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) turning movements were counted on Wednesday, June 4, 2008. A total of 17 cars used the access during those 4 hours. This leads staff to conclude that if the access is used significantly, the majority of its use must be in off-peak hours. Regardless, the traffic volumes are not large enough to warrant the intersection. An informal survey regarding the access to County Road 10 was presented to the City Council and Committee on April 14, 2008 and May 19, 2008, respectively. The petition contains 40 entries representing a total of 29 properties within Mounds View. Of the 29 properties, 26 favor keeping the access open. City staff cannot attest to the validity of the survey since it is unaware of the circumstances under which the questions were asked or the responses obtained. A feedback form was presented to the residents at the June Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 8 14, 2008 Neighborhood Meeting requesting feedback related to the access. The response was split with half wanting to remove the access and half wanting to keep it open (see attached Feedback Form Summary Table). Since the non-standard intersection is not needed for traffic volumes, the Committee believes the issue is safety versus convenience. Keeping the access open would also be a safety issue for the future County Road 10 trailway. For these reasons, the Committee recommends (by a 5 for closing and 1 abstention vote) that the existing access be closed and that Fairchild Avenue and Hillview Road be connected at this location by means of a curve (see figure below). Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 9 9. Draft Raingarden Policy At the June 30, 2008 Streets and Utilities Committee meeting, the parameters of a Draft Raingarden Policy were discussed and voted on. The Draft Policy, which will be presented at the Raingarden Neighborhood Meeting on July 15, 2008, consists of the construction of turf grass raingardens (a.k.a. turf infiltration swales) at all locations suitable for raingardens as shown on Figures 6 and 7 of the Report for the 2007-2008 Street and Utility Improvement Project, dated December 2006. Maintenance of the turf raingarden would be the homeowner’s responsibility. In lieu of a turf raingarden, a planted raingarden could be installed by a homeowner; however, all costs for materials, installation, and maintenance of a planted raingarden would be the homeowner’s responsibility. The Committee feels this draft policy provides the most cost effective way to meet the Rice Creek Watershed District’s regulations, without adding unnecessary costs to the project. The Committee is also concerned about the maintenance/enforcement issues related to planted raingardens. They do not wish for the raingardens to become eyesores in the community. Reference Materials It is the understanding of Staff that the City Council has received copies of all meeting packets of the Streets and Utilities Committee. All background materials for the above issues have been included in those packets, and therefore, have only been summarized in this Staff Report. Please refer to those documents from the Committee meetings as necessary. The following two documents are included with this Report: • A copy of the presentation given during the Public Meeting on June 14, 2008. • A copy of the Feedback Form Summary Table The presentation was not included in the materials for any of the Committee meetings; however, the Committee Members did receive a copy of the presentation at the Public Meeting. The presentation materials will help the Council to view the materials from the perspective of the public who attended the June 14, 2008 meeting. Streets and utilities Committee Recommendations July 7, 2008 Page 10 Recommendation: Staff is looking for official direction from Council for proceeding with the design of the issues noted above for the 2009 – 2010 Street and Utility Improvement Project. Respectfully Submitted, Joseph R. Rhein, Consulting Engineer Attachments: • Presentation given at Public Meeting – June 14, 2008 • Feedback Form Summary Table Page 1 of 11 Meeting Minutes Of the Streets and Utilities Committee June 16, 2008 7:00 P.M. 1.Roll Call Committee Members present:Kavanaugh, Amundsen, Urbanski, Battin, Rynders, Glazer Committee Member not present:Warren Staff Present:Administrator Jim Ericson, Nick Fleischhacker Consultants (Bonestroo) Present Mike Nill, Brad Schleeter 2. Approval of minutes MOTION/SECOND: Amundsen/Urbanski. To approve the Monday, May 19, 2008 minutes as appended. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Committee member Amundsen requests we change the order of the current agenda to group “Unfinished Business”, items B.2 and B.4 together, and B.3 and B.5 together. Committee member Glazer feels those items are separate issues and should be decided separately. Ms. Amundsen agrees they are separate but wants to talk about them together because they are related. 3.Public Input - Citizens are encouraged to speak to the Streets and Utilities Committee on issues of concern. Tom Winiecki thanked the committee for the Public Neighborhood meeting last Saturday. Wendy Kelner, who lives on Fairchild Avenue, supports the closure of the Fairchild/Hillview intersection with County 10. She feels the intersection is unsafe and has had many near misses at that intersection. The addition of a bike or pedestrian trail in the future may further complicate that intersection’s safety. 4. Unfinished Business: A. Neighborhood Meeting follow-up 1. Public Information Summary 2. Feedback Forms Acting Chair Battin thanked the public for attending the meeting last Saturday. He found the information useful in considering the issues. Page 2 of 11 Mike Nill presented the committee a copy of the letter sent to all residents in project A announcing the Saturday June 14th Neighborhood meeting. Mike Nill presented the committee a summary of the feedback forms responses and copies of all the feedback forms turned in by the public after the neighborhood meeting. The summary will be referenced as each of the topics below is presented. B. Recommendations on design issues 1. Fairchild Avenue non-standard street width 2. Red Oak Drive non-standard street width 3. Hillview Road non-standard street width 4. Red Oak Drive pedestrian corridor 5. Hillview Road pedestrian corridor 6. Hillview Park potential parking areas B.1: Mike Nill presented the summary results for the non-standard width of Fairchild Avenue question. There were 18 responses to the feedback form question and 17 responses choose the street width of 24 feet. One person wanted the street widened. Two to three respondents wrote in their own response and requested the street remain at the current street width, which is less than 24 feet. These responses were included as part of the 17 responses for a 24-foot street. A member of the public, Wendy Kelner, expressed the desire for the 24-foot width. Ms. Kelner was not at the meeting on Saturday and did not get the opportunity to fill out the feedback form. Committee member Rynders spoke about the need to take six trees down during the construction. Acting Chair Battin said he had driven down the street and noticed the trees that are within a foot or so of the road but that they did not appear to be major trees, the larger trees are farther off the road. Committee member Amundsen notices that the public input is overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the street narrow. Ms. Amundsen thanked a member of the public, a long time resident on Fairchild Avenue, who gave the committee background at the neighborhood meeting on why Fairchild was narrow. The resident stated that a petition was originally submitted many years ago to keep Fairchild narrow. Ms. Amundsen noted that the committee set a precedent at the previous meeting with the resolution on Jackson Drive to be built to 24-foot instead of the 28-foot city standard. A 24-foot street would preserve the character of Fairchild and keep as many trees as possible. MOTION/SECOND: Urbanski /Amundsen. Fairchild Avenue should be reconstructed at a 24 foot width, curb face to curb face. Committee member Kavanaugh requests that we amend the motion to clarify it. Fairchild Avenue between Hillview and Sherwood will be 24 feet wide. Committee member Urbanski agreed to the amendment. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried as amended. Page 3 of 11 B.2: Mike Nill presented the results of the feedback form question on Red Oak Drive parking to the committee. The width of Red Oak functions on the parking, 57% of the responses are for no parking, 33% are for parking on one side, and 10% are for parking on both sides. There is no clear majority opinion on parking for Red Oak with a slight majority, 57% favoring no parking and 43% wanting parking on the street. B.4: Mike Nill next presented the results of the feedback form question for Red Oak Drive pedestrian accommodations. There was an almost even split between the options of no corridor, shared use (parking and pedestrian/bike), and dedicated pedestrian/bike corridor. No respondent wanted a separate sidewalk. Mr. Nill pointed out that Red Oak is currently a shared use street with two 11-foot lanes and approximately 4 feet of shoulder on each side. Committee member Amundsen pointed out that if you add up the two pedestrian totals of the feedback forms, 29% for shared use and 33% for dedicated use, that means 62% of the respondents wanted some form of on-street pedestrian corridor. Some committee members believe there is a contradiction in the feedback form responses because 57% want no parking and 62% want a pedestrian corridor. Committee member Urbanski believes the results show that the residents want the pedestrian corridor without cars parking on the street. Committee member Rynders said that the city plans call for Red Oak to be part of the city trail-ways and feels that having the pedestrian/bike corridor is important. Committee member Kavanaugh agreed. Acting chair Battin said that the mood of the citizens at the Saturday meeting was that people view traffic and speed as the most important issues. Keeping the street as narrow as possible with traffic calming should be the paramount goal of the design. Committee member Kavanaugh lives in the area and spoke to 44 residents on Red Oak. Mr. Kavanaugh found 7 residents that did want a sidewalk. However, the majority of residents were adamantly opposed to sidewalks. The committee discussed several possible configurations for Red Oak. Mike Nill said that choosing the parking option would determine the configuration of Red Oak. The committee felt it was important to provide a pedestrian/bike corridor and do as much as possible for traffic calming. Administrator Ericson said that if parking were eliminated on Red Oak, the city would not issue parking exceptions. Mr. Ericson said that County H was narrowed to 26 feet with the goal of traffic calming and that did not work. In addition, there is a perception that County H is unsafe because it is narrow. MOTION/SECOND: Rynders / Amundsen. Red Oak Drive should be reconstructed at a 32 foot width, curb face to curb face, with an 8-foot shared use pedestrian/bike corridor, and chokers used for traffic calming. Page 4 of 11 The committee discussed several design issues, such as the location and number of chokers, as well as a need for a retaining wall for the yards adjacent to the road that are significantly above the level of the road. The consensus of the committee is that the engineers will look at these details and present a final design to the city for approval. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B.3: Mike Nill presented the feedback form question results for Hillview Road parking. All the responses indicated resident wanted either one or two side of street parking on Hillview. B.5: On the feedback form question concerning pedestrian accommodations, most responses wanted on-street shared use. The committee discussed options for Hillview with consensus that most residents wanted Hillview to continue as is without change. The residents at the Neighborhood meeting did not express a concern with traffic volume or speed. Committee member Amundsen questioned if keeping the present width would increase the cost because the city standard is 28 feet. Mr. Nill said that he believed the current project cost accounted for Hillview being the current width. Committee member Glazer lives on Hillview and feels that there is no need to change the configuration of Hillview. MOTION/SECOND: Amundsen / Urbanski. Hillview should be reconstructed at a 40 foot width, curb face to curb face, with an 8 foot shared use on each side. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. B.6: Mike Nill presented the parking options for Hillview Park. x Option 1: add 15 angled stalls on the north side of Hillview Road adjacent to the park, resulting in 6 additional stalls. x Option 2: add 27 angled stalls on the north side of Hillview Road adjacent to the park, resulting in 12 additional stalls. x Option 3: add a bump out on east side of Greenwood Drive with room for 9 parallel parking stalls, resulting in 2 fewer stalls. The feedback form responses were split between citizens that want parking added and those that want no change to parking. There was some correlation between where the respondent lived and their preference for parking. Residents that lived on Hillview or close to the park wanted off-street parking. Residents that lived elsewhere did not want off street parking. Committee chair Warren, and his wife were the only residents from Greenwood, the street adjacent to the west side of the park, at the Neighborhood meeting last Saturday. Mr. Warren is in favor of 27 angled stalls and the 9-space bump out on Greenwood. Parking on Hillview and Greenwood adjacent to the park is posted “No Parking” on one side. Page 5 of 11 The committee discussed the three parking options presented and discussed some possible changes such as angled parking on Greenwood. Acting chair Battin suggested that parking for Hillview Park should be presented as two resolutions. Committee member Amundsen expressed a desire to consider the cost of the parking stalls and the need to keep the project within budget. Ms. Amundsen and the committee considered the cost per stall for parking for the different options. Mike Nill presented an approximate cost of $30,000 for the 15 angled spots, $60,000 for the 27 angled spots, and $11,500 for the bump-out on Greenwood. Administrator Ericson said that the Park Supervisor feels that parking is deficient at Hillview Park and more parking is needed. The two purposes of adding off street parking are to expand the amount of parking and improve the safety of the parking. Committee member Amundsen spoke concerning a different configuration for angled parking in which cars are backed into stalls as a way to improve safety. MOTION/SECOND: Urbanski / Rynder. 27 parking spots will be added to the north side of Hillview Road adjacent to the park. Committee member Amundsen requested to amend the motion to specify angled spots. Committee member Urbanski agreed. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried as amended. Committee member Urbanski suggested postponing a decision on the bump out of Greenwood since the only residents from Greenwood at the Neighborhood meeting were committee chair Warren and his wife. Mr. Urbanski wanted to solicit additional feedback from Greenwood residents. The committee discussed several options, such as angled parking on Greenwood, or constructing the street to 28 feet and adding the parking stalls in later years. MOTION/SECOND: Urbanski / Kavanaugh. The nine stall bump out parking area will be added to Greenwood. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Meeting time is at 8:30 PM. There is no objection from the committee to extending the meeting. 5. New Business: A. Fairchild Avenue/ Hillview Road access to Co Rd 10 1. Memo with Staff opinion 2. Letter from Ramsey County 3. Petition from residents Page 6 of 11 Mike Nill presented a memo from Bonestroo indicating that city staff recommended closing the intersection. A letter from Ramsey County also indicated that the county prefers the intersection be closed. An informal survey from residents with 40 entries, representing 29 properties, was discussed. 26 of the property owners preferred to keep the intersection open and 3 preferred to close the intersection. The survey was given to the city council and the streets and utilities committee as a petition; however, it is not a formal petition because there are no signatures. There is a list of names and addresses with a box where a resident could check yes or no on the issue of the closure of the Fairchild Hillview intersection with County 10. [Editorial Note: The informal survey/petition is in no way binding upon the City as City Staff cannot attest to its validity, since Staff is unaware of the circumstances under which the questions were asked or the response obtained.] Betty Shelquist of Fairchild Avenue said she would like the intersection closed. Wendy Kelner of Fairchild Avenue spoke to the committee and said she would like the intersection closed. Ms. Kelner feels that some of the residents were confused by the petition and did not understand the issue. She feels that it is a matter of safety vs. convenience. Acting chair Battin noted that the responses to the feedback form from the Saturday meeting were split fairly evenly on the issue of leaving the intersection open versus closing it. Committee member Amundsen spoke to the author of the letter from Ramsey County to get clarification on the reason the county wants the intersection closed. The county representative said the county could not force the closure of an existing intersection but the county would not allow a new intersection using this design. The county representative said that the angles of the intersection are a safety issue. Ms Amundsen believes that safety is the primary issue. Acting chair Battin agreed that safety should be the number one issue. Cindy Beck, a resident, mentioned that the intersection has a problem with snow removal because of the odd angle of the intersection. Ms. Beck said that with the daycare on that corner, she is in favor of closing the intersection. Tom Winiecki, the resident that conducted the survey, said that the residents that responded to the survey live in the area and want it open. Committee member Rynders asked why that Fairchild intersection is important since Mr. Winiecki lives on Sherwood and could easily use the Groveland intersection to go west on County 10. Mr. Winiecki feels that during rush hour that traffic has more time to speed up between the Red Oak light and Groveland and that makes it more difficult at the Groveland intersection. Mr. Winiecki also feels that people that took the survey did read and understand what they were agreeing too. Committee member Urbanski thanked Mr. Winiecki for taking the time to survey the residents and says this is a tough issue. Committee member Rynders asked Administrator Ericson if something could be done about the timing of the Red Oak light. Mr. Ericson said that the city could approach the county about it. The light takes approximately two and a half minutes to cycle. Page 7 of 11 Committee member Kavanaugh asked Mr. Nill what are the plans for the intersection between Red Oak and County 10. Mr. Nill said that is one of the next topics for discussion. MOTION/SECOND: Amundsen / Rynder. The intersection between Hillview and Fairchild with County 10 should be closed. Committee member Glazer expressed a dilemma on the issue and feels that if enforcement increased there would not be a safety issue. The intersection has not had a history of accidents. Committee member Rynders asked if safety would be more of an issue when the trail is added. Acting chair Battin asked Administrator Ericson if there is a plan to make more controlled intersections. Mr. Ericson said that signals are added as traffic warrants but the trend is to re-engineer intersections to give better angles and improve safety. The committee believes the issue is safety versus convenience. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Abstain – 1 Motion carried. The committee agreed to continue the meeting to discuss raingardens. Acting chair Battin pointed out that the month of June has a fifth Monday and the raingarden issue will require another meeting. The committee also feels that another Neighborhood meeting for raingardens is necessary. Decisions on these two meetings will be made after Bonestroo presents its raingarden presentation to the committee. B. Raingarden Policy 1. Memo regarding May 23, 2008 Staff meeting with RCWD 2. Discussion of homework assignment 3. Identify the next steps Brad Schleeter works for Bonestroo in storm water management and began a presentation of the options in the raingarden memo that was given to the committee at the May meeting. Brad Schleeter wants to know what the committee wants to get out of a neighborhood meeting. Will the meeting be open to all options or would the committee like to present limited options to the public. Brad Schleeter went over some preliminary information before presenting the raingarden memo. He pointed out that this raingarden model is similar to the cancelled 2007-2008 project with a change to the funding model because assessments are no longer used. Mr. Schleeter presented a memo from the Rice Creek Watershed District that is a summary of a meeting with RCWD where Bonestroo presented the street project. The RCWD confirmed that the street project still needs to meet an infiltration and volume control standard. Mr. Schleeter said that the options in the memo are designed to meet the minimum standards required by RCWD and would be the lowest cost. Additional options would enhance the raingarden program and increase the cost. RCWD standards dictate what the volume standard is but RCWD does not dictate how the requirements are met. Page 8 of 11 Committee member Glazer asked if there was a water quality standard in addition to the volume control standard. Mr. Schleeter said that the RCWD volume control standard and infiltration requirements address the water quality standard because the run off that contains the pollutants infiltrates into raingardens, thus reducing the amount of pollutants that flow into the watershed. Option 1: “Extent of raingarden program improvement”. x Option 1.1 - The lowest cost raingarden would be turf grass restoration. The grass would match the home owners’ turf grass. Home owners would mow the turf the same as the rest of their yards. x Option 1.2 – The next option would be planted raingardens by request. The default raingarden would be a turf garden and home owners would have to request a planted raingarden. This would probably limit the number of planted raingardens and keep the cost down. x Option 1.3 – This option is a variety of raingarden options. There could be a number of types and variety of raingardens available to choose from. Committee member Glazer asked about the number and cost of raingardens in the city. Mr. Schleeter indicated that the total number for all projects will be around 600 to 700 raingardens, at a cost of about $500 to $800 each. Committee member Amundsen said that the city Finance Director Beers has calculated the cost of the raingardens into the project cost. Committee member Kavanaugh said a resident of Knollwood had contacted him about foundation problems that occurred when the sump pump had pumped water and sand, undermining the foundation. The issue is whether raingardens would increase the water table and exacerbate this problem. Committee member Glazer said that his reading on raingardens found that raingardens are contra-indicated when the bottom of the raingarden is within 3 foot of the water table. Mr. Schleeter confirmed that RCWD includes this as part of its requirements. Option 2: “Near-term Financial Obligations”. x Option 2.1 – Property owners pay for plantings. According to the RCWD, the city could not apply for a cost sharing program but property owners could apply. The cost sharing option would be 50% home owner and 50% RCWD. The city could help with the cost by buying plants in bulk to decrease plant cost. If some of the cost of the raingarden falls on the property owner, then the number of planted raingardens will be smaller. x Option 2.2 – City pays for plantings. Committee member Amundsen said there could be a third option where the city helps share the cost of the plants. Perhaps the city would pay a third, the home owner a third, and RCWD a third. Brad Schleeter said that for a typical 200 square foot raingarden the cost estimate for plants is $600 to $800. Option 3: “Installation Obligations”. Page 9 of 11 x Option 3.1 – Property owner installs plantings. Property owner installation could be neighborhood events with residents getting together to help with raingardens in their area. The city could organize the event and organize volunteers. The RCWD could provide experts to assist with design of templates for gardens and be on-site during planting to provide direction. This option would be lower cost than if the city installs. Getting residents to pay part of the cost and provide labor for installation means that only residents that really want a raingarden with plantings will request them. x Option 3.2 – City installs plantings. If the city installs the raingardens, there would be continuity between gardens and a more expert installation. There would be an additional $600 to $800 cost of labor for expert installation. This cost is on top of the cost of the plants and would essentially double the cost of each planted raingarden. Option 4: “Long-term Maintenance Obligations”. x Option 4.1 – Property owner maintains. If property owners help with cost and installation, then the maintenance would fall on the property owners. Some education on raingarden maintenance could be offered to the residents. The cost of replacing plants that die in future years would fall on the property owners. Committee member Amundsen said that other cities, such as Maplewood, provide mulch to residents to maintain the garden. Committee member Glazer asked if there was an agreement between the city and the property owner on performance of maintenance. Mr. Schleeter said there should be some mechanism to monitor maintenance, and to go in and remove raingardens and replace them with turf if they are not maintained. Committee member Urbanski asked about the financial incentive that was available to residents with raingardens when assessments were used. Without assessment, there is no credit available. x Option 4.2 – City maintains. Option 5: “Property owners who don’t want a raingarden adjacent to their property”. x Option 5.1 – Allow property owners to refuse. x Option 5.2 – Install Turf grass regardless. Mr. Schleeter said there could be some flexibility but the city is required to meet the RCWD standards one way or another. Without enough raingardens, the city may be forced to use a more costly alternative, such as holding ponds. However, there is limited land available in the city for holding ponds. C. Other New Business? Acting chair Battin brought up the possibility of having a raingarden committee meeting to discuss the raingarden topic and formulate an agenda for the neighborhood meeting. That meeting could be June 30 and the neighborhood meeting would occur after that meeting. The committee could then finalize the raingarden recommendations at the July 21 meeting. The committee discussed possible neighborhood meeting dates and felt the weekend meeting would limit participation. Page 10 of 11 Mike Nill believes the committee could narrow the options for raingardens on June 30, otherwise many people may want the city to pay for everything and that would increase the project costs. MOTION/SECOND: Urbanski / Amundsen. To hold a neighborhood meeting. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. MOTION/SECOND: Rynders / Urbanski. Tuesday, July 15, 2008 at 7:00 PM as the neighborhood meeting date and time. Ayes – 6 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Notice will be posted in the newspaper and letters will be mailed to all people in the project area. Committee member Rynders asked about the issue of paved bus stops. Acting chair Battin suggested postponing discusson on this issue until July 21 so staff can have time to contact the bus company and get information on bus stops. Committee member Kavanaugh asked how state aid financing applies to streets. Can money be taken off one street and used on another street. Could Red Oak be taken off the list of state aid streets? Mike Nill said he could prepare a memo on this topic. 6. Committee Member/Staff Reports: A. 2009-2010 Street and Utility Project design status update The street and utility committee recommendations are ready to present to the city council. Administrator Ericson said staff would prepare the recommendations. When asked about the timing for presenting the recommendations and when the council would consider them, Mr. Ericson said there was not enough time to get the recommendations done before the June 23 city council meeting. He said that he would notify the streets and utilities committee when the city council will be discussing the recommendations so that committee members could attend the council meeting. B. 2009 Levy Update 1. Memo from City Finance Director Acting chair Battin mentioned the memo from the finance director. In particular the legislature has passed a levy limit of 3.9%. The levy of $100 per average household that would raise an additional $400,000 per year needed for the project is more than offset by the legislature increasing our local government aid by more than $400,000. Administrator Ericson was asked if the council still plans a levy increase up to the 3.9% limit. He stated that it is being considered, however, with the increase of local government aid that even with an increase of 3.9% in the levy, there would still be a decrease in the city portion of property taxes for Page 11 of 11 residents. What the legislature does in the future in terms of local government aid or levy limits is unknown at this time. C. Any Other Reports? 7. Request for future agenda items/other business A. Possible Items for the July 21st Agenda. Committee member Rynders asked about an E Mail sent by a resident. That E Mail will be forwarded to the remainder of the committee. Administrator Ericson said he would make sure that all committee members got a copy. 8. Summary of Actions and Information Needed for the Next Meeting Meeting adjourned at 9:56 P.M