Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-10-11 MINUTESREQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # �.,/ DATE 01 /05/05 / • � • � PREPARED BY: Public Works Les Burshten ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR ..�.,..��..��..�...�,,.��.��,,..�.��..��..�..�,�.�� COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST: Accept and place on file the minutes of the October 11, 2004 meeting of the Public Works Commission. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the October 11, 2004 minutes of the Public Works Commission. BUDGET IMPLICATION: $ $ BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION: DATE ❑ PLANNING ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY � PUBLIC WORKS 12/13/04 ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ APPROVED ❑ ❑ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ MEMO/LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: � OTHER: Approved minutes of Public Works Commission meeting on ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ October 11, 2004 �,� �'2 � ity Admin' trator � Dat ........�...� COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN ...�.. «....��...�..�...�...�..��.. APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION October 11, 2004 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a meeting of the Public Works Commission of Cottage Grove was duly held at the Public Works Facility, 8635 West Point Douglas Road, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on October 11, 2004 at 7:00 pm. 1. CALL TO ORDER Commission Chair Ken Boyden called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 2. ROLL CALL David Anderson, Ken Boyden , Robert Dornsbach, Randy Eckstein, Roger Finnegan, Gary Kjellberg, David Thiede Staff Present: Les Burshten, Public Works Director Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Brian Voelker, ManagementAnalyst Dave Hanson, Bonestroo & Associates Also Present: Jim Wolcott City Council Member 3. APPROVE MINUTES - September 13, 2004 Upon a motion by Randy Eckstein, seconded by David Thiede, the September 13, 2004 minutes were approved unanimously. 4. ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS None Public Works Commission October 11, 2004 — Page 2 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Interim Curb Policy Jennifer Levitt indicated this topic has been previously discussed by both this Commission as well as the City Council. Street construction policy issues have been forwarded to developers and feedback has been requested from residents to gain insight on their feelings regarding the process. Letters were sent to developers to attend tonighYs meeting. (It should be noted no developers were in attendance). Levitt stated curb damage has been increasing and will have a long term impact on the City's infrastructure and added that contractors have been made aware of this issue. New homeowners desire and have the expectation of a new street thaYs not damaged or cracked. Over the years, costs to replace curb have continually increased. Project Engineer Dave Hanson of Bonestroo and Associates explained some theories as to why curb damage is more prevalent than ever. Homebuildinq Procedures • Single family homes are now built utilizing time and labor-saving 4-wheel drive forklifts to drop loads of lumber. In looking for a spot to store building materials, items are being dropped wherever there is room, including driving over curbs and stockpiling material across the street from a project. . Additionally, a custom built home requires the use of 4-5 dumpsters over the course of construction. Every time a dumpster is dropped off, the curb is used as a guide to place the dumpster on the property. Many building foundations are now poured in place instead of being constructed with concrete blocks, so now numerous concrete trucks and other heavy equipment must also drive onto the lot. • The speed required to build homes now requires multiple trades people on location at one time. The closer these workers can park to the home, the less carrying of material. • Builders explain that they can't slow the construction process or control the curb damage and indicated that it will be difficult to keep lot costs down as more is demanded by the City in regard to street construction standard. Utilitv Installation Hanson explained that for the last 8-10 years, telephone, electric and gas utilities were put in one trench. The City standard at that time was 7-9 feet behind the back of curb. Consequently during installation, material would be dug too close to the curb causing damage. The City now requires the utility trench to be in the drainage utility easement area so less damage is now occurring, although it hasn't been eliminated. Fublic Works Commission October 11, 2004 — Page 3 Road Construction Procedures Curbs now have a slant design so damage can be mostly avoided during road construction. This procedure has improved things much more than initially thought. Levitt explained the various street construction methods: Method #1 (Residenfial areas) Initial construction of an interim bituminous curb and road section to be used as a road surface until housing construction is substantially complete, at which time the ultimate concrete curb and bituminous street section will be constructed. Method #2 (Commercial areas) Initial construction of the ultimate concrete curb section and bituminous base. The curb style shall be in accordance with the standard plate, including the 1:14 batter to accommodate other construction equipment. Said curb is fo be protected by a bituminous wedge along the street edge and reinforced silt fence along the back edge. Said bituminous wedge shall be removed and any damaged curb shall be replaced prior to wear course paving. The potential for curb damage prior to wear course paving exists with construction Method #2 Method #3 (Industrial Park) The ultimate concrete curb section with 8618 and bituminous base. Inspection will be made of street by the City with removal and replacement of damaged curb in accordance to City Standards. Commission Member David Thiede inquired why doesn't the City establish a final requirement making damages the responsibility of the developer? Levitt responded that since iYs the City's right-of-way, street and storm sewer system, we're very concerned with the look of the finished product. Hanson added that if the City waits until construction is complete, you must at that point decide what will be accepted and what should be removed and replaced, which may be a point of debate with the developer. Additionally, iYs difficult to evaluate the degree of damage. An advantage to Method #1 is that once building activity has concluded, residents basically have a new street — a significant amount of life has been added to that street within that development. Commission Member Gary Kjellberg questioned why concrete curb would be placed in commercial areas where it can become damaged and why Method #1 isn't used? Levitt responded that commercial areas involve additional traffic and more defined driveways and entrances are desirable. Hanson stated a good example of this is the Summerhill Development at 70�" Street and Hinton where concrete curb was installed barrier style. The development will be phased and the final surface will be placed after development is complete. When commercial buildings are being constructed, more area is available for contractors and not much activity takes place on the street, thereby causing less Public Works Commission October 11, 2004 — Page 4 damage. Kjellberg also inquired why sidewalks and trails are put in first — why not at the end of a project so they won't be driven on and damaged? Levitt explained that there is some criticalness to the elevations set in the field and iYs important that driveways coordinate with the curb which will help ensure better transition with the street once iYs in place. Hanson added that if the sidewalk isn't installed by the time the final street process is done, the driveways will all be graded differently — every time you approach a driveway, you will have to change the elevation of the sidewalk. Additionally, homeowners are eager to install irrigation systems, landscaping and like to see some finished yard at some point from the street up to their home. To go back and tear up the area would have a larger impact on residents. Hanson went on to explain that people often forget the curb is just a portion of the street section — the road, the bituminous, the gravel base and the curb must all work together. If one is damaged, the other components are also damaged. When sidewalks are replaced, it doesn't affect other infrastructures. It was noted by Hanson that the street construction policy indicates permanent curb will not be placed until 90% of the homes are built. Residents appreciate the B-style (barrier) curb because of its defined, smooth transition thaYs surmountable. Should damage occur after the new concrete curb has been placed, developers will be responsible for replacement but it will be more expensive at this point because of the wear coat that will be applied by that time. Hanson distributed a handout showing estimated construction costs of each method. The figures indicate that iYs cheaper to put in the interim street and build the ultimate street at a later date. Developers don't like the look of an interim street because they can't sell lots. They want the final curb in while prospective homeowners are looking things over so they would rather pay extra money per lineal foot because of aesthetics for that period when they are trying to sell. A street construction questionnaire was sent to residents in new construction areas. The following questions were asked: 1. When purchasing your home, how well do you feel you were informed of the street construction process to occur in your neighborhood? 2. Prior to and during the street construction process, how well do you feel the City communicated the process and milestones to you? 3. Did you attend the pre- project meeting for your neighborhood? 4. How would you rate the inconvenience of the street construction process in your neighborhood? ( 1 through 5, with 5 meaning inconvenient) 5. Do you feel that the new street was worth the inconvenience? (1 through 5 with 5 being worth the inconvenience 6. Overall, how would you rate the street construction process for your neighborhood? (1-5 with 5 being excellent Levitt reported that most residents were well informed with 41 % of the respondents indicating so. When we talked about the process and milestones, a respondent indicated they weren't well informed, but it should be noted that this individual did not Public Works Commission October 11, 2004 — Page 5 attend the pre-construction meeting as most of the residents had. Additionally, most of the homeowners (56%) were willing to put up with the inconvenience of the construction of the ultimate new street. Overall, the construction process received a rating of an average 3 to 5. Levitt stated that the ultimate conclusion is that there must be a change in the street construction process. Staff is requesting feedback from the Commission on the three different methods outlined tonight. Kjellberg commented that he feels the ultimate goal is to tell developers what the City will expect and the end goal is for the residents to receive a quality project. He also wondered whether iYs possible to include in the policy a written guide as to what constitutes damage that needs to be replaced. Levitt responded that staff has been struggling with that question and at this point haven't determined what is and isn't acceptable. Commission Member Randy Eckstein indicated that developers may need to know up front what their costs will be as their building habit may be dictated by the City's criteria for the curb damage. Levitt stated that Public Works Management Analyst Brian Voelker prepared a memo surveying other cities and what their policies are. Many of them haven't developed policies however it was interesting to note that some cities accepted damage on the front face of the curb, not thinking that this was important. Levitt asked Randy Eckstein how many linier feet of curb he sees that doesn't have a gouge or chip out of the front face and he stated "very little". It is believed that this damage would be avoided by using Method #1. Eckstein commented that if this meeting would have been held a couple of years ago, developers would have made a point to attend. He feels they have accepted the policy and the survey results were more positive than he'd believed they would be. He also indicated he is out working in the new developments and workers do prefer Method #1 because they can speed up their work. Commission Chair Boyden agreed that this method is likely better for the City as well. MOTION MADE BY DAVID THIEDE, SECONDED BY GARY KJELLBERG, TO APPROVE THE NEW STREET CONSTRUCTION POLICY. SPECIFICALLY, METHOD #1 WILL BE USED IN ALL RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND METHOD #2 WILL BE UTILIZED IN COMMERCIAL AREAS. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED B. TECHNICAL REVIEW 6.1 CASE VO4-050 Keith and Stacy Kapaun, 8804 88` Street South, have applied for a variance to Title 11- 3-3C, Accessory Structures Setbacks, to allow a garage to be located approximately 7 feet from the rear property line when 10 feet is required, and to Title 11-3-4E, Encroachment Over Easements, to allow the garage to encroach within a 10-foot drainage and utility easement. Public Works Commission October 11, 2004 — Page 6 Levitt explained that that the shed already exists but siding has not been applied. Since there was no hardship in evidence, the homeowners were told that the building would have to be relocated. 6.2 CASE RSO4-051 Rodney and Mary Hale have applied for a rural subdivision to subdivide an 18-acre parcel located on Lower Grey Cloud Island into two parcels. Planning will be calling Mr. Hale in order to discuss this issue. There isn't much area for suitable building of an on-site sewage treatment system. Planning is cautious about setting a precedent on the effect this will have on Grey Cloud and some of the existing homeowners. 6.3 CASE CUPO4-052 Kerry J. Severson has applied to amend his conditional use permit for a horse boarding facility to allow a 60-foot by 80-foot additional for an indoor horse training arena at 11050 Manning Avenue South. There were no issues with this request. The ponding was already established when the arena was built. 6.4 CASE CUPO4-053 Las Margaritas has applied for a conditional use permit to allow a restaurant with liquor to be located in the Shoppes at Gateway retail development, 7750 Harkness Avenue South. The only issue with this is that the parking area is below the recommendation of what is required. A variance will likely be granted for the parking reduction. C. 80` Street Speed Study Les Burshten explained that the traffic study of this area was last done in 1997 and the consensus is that the current process is still working well. The request for the study was prompted because the City received a small number of phone calls from concerned residents. MOTION MADE BY DAVID THIEDE, SECONDED BY ROBERT DORNSBACH, TO NOT PROCEED WITH A SPEED STUDY OF 80 STREET. MOTION WAS UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED. D. FUTURE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES. Burshten explained the Parks Commission is looking for some direction on whether to continue construction of small neighborhood parks or to eliminate those types of facilities and go with a trail system that would lead people to a larger park which would Public Works Commission October 11, 2004 — Page 7 be more of a complex type setting. Maintenance is a concern, and small parks have some merit. If we eliminate them, residents may be quite a distance from an available park. Gary Kjellberg would like to know how much these parks are being used and feels a survey would be one way to find out if residents are utilizing these parks. Council Member Wolcott suggested that if a small neighborhood park is desired, it should be part of the homeowner's association. Dave Hanson agreed stating that more developers are incorporating parks into their development. The question of what is considered a public park and a private park were discussed. While associations are supposed to maintain these parks, many are not being maintained properly. The City must set some requirements on how these areas should be cared for. Staff feels there is a need for the small parks and it would be beneficial to look into having neighborhood covenants cover the maintenance of these parks. In the case of the park at Highland Hills (Pete Thompson Park), the developer put forth the funds to build the park, however, city staff maintains it. After discussion, the consensus of this Commission is: • More research be put into usage of both parks and the trail system in the City to see how much they are needed. . Additionally, it should be determined how much time is spent by city staff maintaining these parks and trails. Burshten stated that staff will address these concerns and obtain some answers to the questions brought forth. E. JOINT MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL — OCTOBER 20, 2004 — 6:30 pm City Hall Council Chambers The Commission was encouraged to attend this upcoming meeting in order to discuss current issues and concerns with the Mayor and City Council. 6. OLD BUSINESS A. Sign Policy Les Burshten explained that the Sign Policy was discussed at a previous Public Works Commission Meeting. The current sign policy was adopted based on a Public Works Commission October 11, 2004 — Page 8 recommendation from Engineering that the Public Works Department respond and evaluate sign requests rather than the Public Safety Department. 7. PUBLIC WORKS UPDATE • The building for Well #11 at 70` and Idsen is moving along well. . Hydrant flushing is complete • Snowplowing equipment is being prepared for the upcoming season • Annual Snowplowing Meeting for PW Employees is October 27� . Hazardous Waste Collection at Public Works was October 9` They counted 205 cars — an increase from past years. 8. EAST RAVINE UPDATE No new items to discuss tonight 9. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE • Rick Alt was appointed to the position of Working Foreman- Utilities Department . Authorized purchase of adjacent land to Hamlet Park for park expansion and stormwater ponding • Authorized Cottage Grove Athletic Association to conduct pull tabs and raffles at Rodeo • Awarded Danner the bid for 2001 flood damage repair on Grey Cloud Island 10. ENGINEER'S REPORT Jennifer Levitt explained GoodPointe Technology supplied the City preliminary results of the condition survey conducted on our pavement. All preliminary results indicated we have an average PCI around the mid 80's. Maintenance procedures and policies will be evaluated on how they implement our funding scenario. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND REQUESTS Gary Kjellberg requested a map so new projects may be more easily identified. 12. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn was made by Randy Eckstein, seconded by Robert Dornsbach. Meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. RespectFully submitted, �atri,c',i.a� Storl�y