HomeMy WebLinkAbout7A, 2013 Pavement Management Program - Public Hearing Ridgewood, Asbury, Edgewater, and Glenhill Neighborhood lt
,-AREN,HILLS
Request for Council Action 7A
................... ................. ------
.............
Prepared By: John Anderson,P.E.,Assistant Council Meeting Date: January 14,2013
City Engineer
2013 Pavement Management Program—Public Hearing
Ridgewood,Asbury, Edgewater, and Glenhill Neighborhood
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
$1,700,000 $1,165,678 to $1,671,185 PIR, Sanitary Sewer, Water,
Surface Water Management
Recommendation:
• Staff Presentation
• Conduct Public Hearing
Supporting Documents:
1. Memorandum dated January 14, 2013, from John Anderson,Assistant City Engineer.
2. Comments received by staff.
3. Survey results.
'It
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 14, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
FROM: John M. Anderson P.E., Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: 2013 Pavement Management Program—Public Hearing
Background:
On November 13, 2012, the City Council received the feasibility report for the 2013 PMP
Improvement Project and ordered the public hearing for January 14, 2013. Prior to
opening the hearing, City staff will present general information regarding construction,
standards, and assessments that apply for this project.
Following Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, notice of the public hearing must be posted
twice prior to the meeting (this was done in the Bulletin on December 26, 2012 and
January 9, 2013). A notice was also sent to each property proposed to be assessed as a
part of this project.
Once the hearing is closed, the next step in the process is for the City Council to order the
improvements and preparation of plans and specifications.
Discussion:
The following is a brief summary of proposed improvements; for more detail, please
reference the feasibility report.
Street Improvements:
Two options for street improvements have been proposed in the feasibility study. The
first option, Reconstruction, involves fully rebuilding the road base and surface and is
the most intrusive option as well as the more costly option. The reconstruction option
also includes addition of concrete curb and gutter throughout the entire neighborhood to
tie in and continue the reconstruction completed in the Roseville portion of the
neighborhood in 2008. The second option, Reclamation, involves pulverizing the
existing bituminous surface and recycling that material to be used as an aggregate base.
This option is less expensive and has less impact to the surroundings. The existing street
has bituminous curb in some locations to direct drainage or support steep boulevard
grades. Bituminous curb would be replaced as needed in the reclamation option.
Page 1 of 5
Storm Drainage and Storm Water Quality Improvements:
Storm drainage improvements involve replacement of all the storm collection and
conveyance in the neighborhood. With the replacement of the storm collection,,,storm
sewer is also expected to be extended along Edgewater Avenue to facilitate better
collection of storm events and provide an outlet for rain gardens as needed.
Storm water quality improvements, as required by Rice Creek Watershed District, are
dependent on the type of work proposed in the permit. City staff has met with watershed
district staff and established that street reclamation is not an activity that requires storm
water treatment and falls under the definition of rehabilitation. The amount of storm
water treatment required by Rice Creek Watershed will be dependent on the level of
improvement to the roadway. At this point, based on our conversations with the
watershed, we estimated the following amount of treatment to be require for each option
Alternative 1 —Reconstruction— 13,885 Cubic Feet
Alternative 2—Reclamation—2,400 Cubic Feet
Water System Improvements:
The improvements to the water system include replacement of the watermain on
Edgewater Avenue and Ridgewood Road north of Glenhill Road. Additionally all seven
hydrants and eight valves in the neighborhood will be replaced.
Sanitary Sewer System Improvements:
The sanitary sewer improvements associated with the project include replacement of the
manhole frames and covers to match the new street grade as well as replacement of the
force main from lift station nine to the intersection of Glenhill Road and Snelling
Avenue.
Financial Implications:
The estimated total project cost for the improvements is $1,671,185 which includes all
overhead costs. Consistent with the City's assessment policy, 37% overhead costs for the
street improvements has been included, which was used to calculate preliminary
assessment rates. The overhead is broken down as follows:
City Administration 2.5%
Design Engineering 10.0%
Construction Engineering 10.0%
Legal 2.0%
Fiscal 3.0%
Interest During Construction 4.5%
Assessment Roll Preparation 1.0%
Contin e_g_ ncies 4.0%
TOTAL 37.0%
Page 2 of 5
The project is proposed with alternatives for roadway rehabilitation. The costs of these
alternatives are broken down in the following tables taken from the feasibility study:
Alternative 1 —Reconstruction
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Street Improvements
Construction Cost $ 626,384
Contingency&Overhead (37%) $ 231,763
Total Estimated Cost $ 858,147
Watermain Improvements
Construction Cost $ 274,774
Contingency&Overhead (30%) $ 82,433
Total Estimated Cost $ 357,207.
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Construction Cost $ 47,750
Contingency&Overhead (30%) $ 14,325
Total Estimated Cost $ 62,075
Storm Drainage Improvements-Biofiltration
Construction Cost $ 302,889
Contingency&Overhead (30%) $ 90,867
Total Estimated Cost $ 393,756
Total Street Improvements Cost $ 858,147
Total Utility Improvements Cost $ 813,038
Total Project Cost $ 1,671,185
Alternative 2 - Reclamation
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
Street Improvements
Construction Cost $ 311,528
Contingency&Overhead (37%) $ 115,266
Total Estimated Cost $ 426,794
Watermain Improvements
Construction Cost $ 274,774
Contingency&Overhead (30%) $ 82,433
Total Estimated Cost $ 357,207
Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Construction Cost $ 47,750
Contingency&Overhead (30%) $ 14,325
Total Estimated Cost $ 62,075
Storm Drainage Improvements-Biofiltration
Construction Cost $ 245,847
Contingency&Overhead (30%) $ 73,754
Total Estimated Cost $ 319,602
Total Street Improvements Cost $ 426,794
Total Utility Improvements Cost $ 738,884
Total Project Cost $ 1,165,678
Page 3 of 5
The City's portion of the project costs are currently budgeted from the PIR and Utility
Enterprise Funds (sanitary sewer, surface water management and watermain funds). The
proposed project funding summary is listed in the table below.
Alternative 1 —Reconstruction
Funding Source Cost
Residential Assessments $ 427,719
PIR Fund $ 430,429
Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund $ 62,075
Watermain Enterprise Fund $ 357,207
Surface Water Management
Fund $ 393,756
Total Funding $1,671,186
Alternative 2 - Reclamation
Funding Source Cost
Residential Assessments $ 212,042
PIR Fund $ 214,752
Sanitary Sewer Enterprise
Fund $ 62,075
Watermain Enterprise Fund $ 357,207
Surface Water Management
Fund $ 319,602
Total Funding $1,165,678
Assessments:
As detailed in the feasibility report, two preliminary assessment rates have been
established; the first for alternative 1, Reconstruction, and the second for alternative 2,
Reclamation. Based on 48 REU, and the estimated street improvement costs, the
estimated assessment rate per REU is $8,939.03 for Alternative 1, Reconstruction, and
$4,445.77 for Alternative 2, Reclamation.
Neighborhood Survey Results:
A survey was conducted to solicit input from the neighborhood on a few key items. The
results of the survey are attached to this memo. As of January 8, 2013, there were 32
responses to the survey out of 48 properties proposed to be assessed. One question dealt
with the preferred type of roadway rehabilitation. Of those responding to this question,
Page 4 of 5
81% favored the reclamation option. One question dealt with storm water treatment, of
those responding to this question 13 properties indicated a willingness to have a rain
garden or participate in the maintenance of one.
Resident Comments/Concerns:
City staff has attached written comments received from property owners regarding the
proposed project. Any additional comments received after the Council packet is issued
and prior to the public hearing will be provided at the public hearing.
11/1/12 Maureen McGuire (email)
11/9/12 Ray Conroe (email)
11/26/12 Dan Erding (email)
11/26/12 Nancy Jacobson(email)
11/27/12 Thomas Fabel (email)
12/30/12 Victor Cox (email)
1/5/13 Nancy Jacobson(email)
1/5/13 Senay Kindler(email)
Council Actions Requested:
Hold the Public Improvement Hearing for the 2013 Pavement Management Program.
Page 5 of 5
John Anderson
From: Maureen McGuire ]
Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2012 8:56 AM
To: John Anderson
Subject: Re: 2012 Pavement Management Program neighborhood meeting-Oct 23, 2012
Thank you, John. We are definitely in support of this project. I will attend the upcoming Nov meeting.
Maureen
From: John Anderson <john.anderson(aD-ci.arden-h ills.mn.us>
To: Maureen McGuire
Sent:Wednesday, October 31, 2012 3:48 PM
Subject: RE: 2012 Pavement Management Program neighborhood meeting -Oct 23, 2012
Maureen
Attached is the power point presentation that was presented at the neighborhood meeting on October 23`d. The report city
staff is preparing on the streets will be presented to the City council on November 13,2012. At that meeting the City
council will review the report and may order a public hearing on the improvement. The public hearing will be advertised
in the local paper as well as mailed notices will be sent to all affected residents. The purpose of the public hearing is to
share the intent of the proposed plans and take testimony from residents related to the project. The public hearing, if
ordered will most likely take place in December or January
Hopefully this answers your questions if you have more please feel free to contact me by phone or email
Thanks
John Anderson PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743
a -�
(651) 792-7846 -. mailto:terry.maurer(@ci.arden-hills.mn.us
Itow-
EN
1
From:Maureen McGuire ]
Sent: Saturday,October 06,2012 7:48 PM
To: John Anderson
Cc:
Subject: 2012 Pavement Management Program neighborhood meeting-Oct 23,2012
John,
My husband and I are new residents in Arden Hills and we received a letter about the Oct 23 meeting about
street improvements. We are unable to make the meeting but want to express that want to learn more about the
plan. The streets are a mess and something needs to be done. Can you please keep us aprised of the plans?
I believe you and I met under poor circumstances when you came onto my property yelling at me about a fallen
tree only to realize that you never returned any of our phone calls. I truly hope that this transition will result in
better communication between the city and concerned neighbors.
Maureen McGuire
0 '
2
John Anderson
From: Terry Maurer
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 1:28 PM
To: John Anderson
Subject: FW: PMP Presentation
Re: 2013 PMP
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Conroe [mailto. ]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 6:43 AM
To: Terry Maurer
Subject: FW: PMP Presentation
Terry - Here's the response from our tree consultant. I agree with his recommendation of
getting a forester to provide input to the City.
Keep me posted.
Thanks,
Ray Conroe
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger Gatz [mail']
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2012 7:12 AM
To: 'Ray Conroe'
Subject: RE: PMP Presentation
Ray,
Thanks for the info. Simply put, of the options available, go with the one that causes the
least disruption to the base of the trees. I would think that Arden Hills would have a City
Forester on contract to advise them.
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Ray Conroe [mailto: ]
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 6:34 AM
To:
Subject: FW: PMP Presentation
Roger - Here's the info about the alternative methods the City of Arden Hills is considering
for repaving our street.
Let me know if you have questions.
Thanks much,
Ray Conroe
of
-----Original Message-----
From: Terry Maurer [mailto:terry.maurer(@ci.arden-hills.mn.us]
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2012 8:42 AM
1
To:
Subject: PMP Presentation
Terry Maurer PE
Public Works Director
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743
(651) 792-7847
terry.maurer(@ci.arden-hills.mn.us
2
John Anderson
From: John Anderson
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:07 AM
To: 'Dan Erding'; Terry Maurer; Danielle Erding
Subject: RE: Street Reconstruction
Mr. Erding
Thank you for your comments. At this point no decision has been made on the street section(curbed, no curb,
bituminous curb). The public hearing is scheduled for January 14, 2013,we will include your email along with other
comments we receive in our report to the City council for the Public Hearing. I encourage you to attend this meeting to
share your comments with the City Council .
John Anderson PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743
(651) 792-7846 john.anderson(@ci.arden-hills.mn.us
Tt
EN IHMLZ)
From: Dan Erding
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 6:01 PM
To: John Anderson; Terry Maurer; Danielle Erding
Subject: Street Reconstruction
Hi John and Terry,
I live at 3120 Asbury Ave in Arden Hills, my garage sits in Roseville and my house in Arden Hills. I'm being told by my
neighbors that when re-doing the street, they are most likely going to skip the concrete curbs. As you probably can
guess, I am opposed to this. I can't even believe this is an option since I was told back in 2008 there is NO WAY I'd
have to have part of my property curbed and the other part not after Arden Hills finally decides to re-do their streets. Of
course I was also told the curb would end at my property line rather than in the middle of my yard. Well that didn't
happen, so you can probably see where I'm going with this. I see on the website both proposals and I'm curious what
the general feedback is that you've received from the neighborhood? The ones telling me that they aren't going to curb it
are the "old timers" who don't want to pay for anything and have been fighting the street re-construction for the past
decade even though they've lived in this neighborhood for 50 years and used the street for that long. Any feedback is
appreciated.
i
John Anderson
From: John Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:31 AM
To: 'Ed Dickinson'
Cc: Terry Maurer
Subject: RE: 2013 PMP
Nancy
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the issues related to this project. We will be providing the City Council
with copies of all the comments we receive for their consideration at the January 14th Public Hearing.
John Anderson PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743
(651) 792-7846 john.anderson @ci.arden-hills.mn.us
,It
IT rN
EN IHZLZ�
From: Ed Dickinson [ ]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:43 PM
To: John Anderson
Cc: Terry Maurer
Subject: 2013 PMP
John,
Thank you for the presentation on Oct 23 rd.It gave the neighborhood and myself time to think about the
project. Since then I've read the Feasibility Report for 2013 Pavement Management Plan that was submitted to
the Council this November. I want to express a concern I have with both Alternatives presented and offer
another option. Either removing the woods or removing the tennis court in order to create adequate rain water
storage would be a problem for the neighborhood. The tennis court has been an asset to our neighborhood over
the many years we have managed it, only recently becoming a City park. Removing the trees and shrubs that act
as a buffer to Snelling Avenue would also be seen by many residents as a blow to the quality of life here. So I
am offering another option for finding adequate rain water storage, one not mentioned in either the Oct 23`d
presentation or the feasibility report.
i
Glen Hill Road
The widths of all of our streets vary from 25-36'. Instead of these varying widths, I would like to suggest
building streets in the neighborhood at 24' wide, a width that would more appropriately handle our
neighborhood's lower volume of traffic. By constructing streets to this narrower width the remaining space can
then be used for rain gardens. For example Glen Hill Avenue from Asbury to Ridgewood Road is 30' wide;
making this section a 24' roadway would provide six feet that could be used for rainwater storage(not counting
the residential boulevard for each home). This also would reduce the amount of impervious surface that would
need to be managed.
Asbury Avenue
Asbury Avenue from Glen Hill to Edgewater serves as a route for at most 10 houses. The width of this section
of Asbury is 30'. The feasibility report designates the Northwestern College side of the road as a rain garden.
However much of that side has a steep slope with many shrubs growing on it, and since Northwestern College
has a busy road on the other side of the fence, this shrub border acts as a much needed buffer to the sound
coming from that road as well as to its view, and the view of the many buildings and college layout that so
significantly contrasts with our neighborhood. This sloping section of boulevard would be unsuitable to water
storage. The only way to create enough area flat enough to hold water would be to do significant clearing and
grubbing. A retaining wall, should it be needed, would be expensive to build and maintain.
By narrowing the street 6' much of the converted road bed could be easily used as a rain garden. I've attached
two pictures facing north and south on Asbury in front of my house taken this weekend, showing that the
normal road traffic doesn't now use the whole width of the road. Notice the snow and leaves stuck to the road
on the College side—the space between the leaves was created by rivulet's of water flowing through the leaves
during a fall rain storm, not by tire tracks. By making the new road 24' wide we would have a road as wide as
we are effectively using now that would cost less to build, and would reduce the neighborhood's need for water
storage.
Ridgewood
The road section to the beach property serves only two homes and would not need to be redone to its current
width of between 29 and 33'. If it were narrowed to 24' there would be space for a rain garden along the
wetland side that would require less clearing and grubbing.
Edgewater Avenue
Edgewater is currently 25' and would benefit from a slightly narrower street.
Overall then, my view is that a 24' wide road would be appropriate and adequate for our neighborhood
usage, would provide several areas alongside the road that could be used for rainwater storage, and also reduce
our construction costs.
Thanks for your consideration,
Nancy Jacobson
3188 Asbury Ave
2
John Anderson
From: John Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:04 PM
To: 'thomas fabel'
Cc: Terry Maurer
Subject: RE: My email to the City Council
Tom
I did receive your email and will be sure to pass the information on to the city council
prior to the Tan 14 city council meeting. Thank you for thoughtfully considering the options
and taking the time to share your input.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: thomas fabel
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 3:03 PM
To: John Anderson
Subject: My email to the City Council
John: For some reason my computer reports that my email to the Council concerning the 2013
paving project, which I cc'ed to you, could not be delivered. Please let me know if you
received it, and if so, whether you will be delivering to the Council yourself. Thanks,
John. Tom Fabel
1
John Anderson
From: thomas fabel
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:55 PM
To: David Grant; Brenda Holden; Fran Holmes; edwerner88 @yahoo.com; nick @llgardens.com
Cc: John Anderson
Subject: 2013 Pavement Management Program
Mayor Grant and Members of the City Council:
My name is Tom Fabel. My wife Jean and I have resided at 1550 Edgewater in Arden Hills for
the past 28 1/2 years. I am writing with regard to the proposed 2013 street improvements,
which will include our block on Edgewater Avenue.
First, I wish to compliment the city engineer's office for the thorough and professional
report it has prepared on this project, and also on its courtesy and responsiveness to
neighborhood questions and concerns. Both at the October 23 meeting at City Hall and in a
subsequent neighborhood visit by Assistant City Engineer John Anderson, the office
demonstrated high levels of competence and professionalism. Also, the City Council itself
deserves praise for street paving policies which are flexible and responsive to the needs and
concerns of individual neighborhoods. Thank you.
The Feasibility Report prepared by the engineer's office presents the Council with two
options for the street pavement aspect of this project. Alternative 1 is captioned
"Reconstruction": it involves more extensive grading, the removal of more material, and the
installation of concrete curbs on the sides of the streets. Alternative 2 is captioned
"Reclamation": it involves less grading, less removal, and, significantly, the preservation
of the historic condition, which is an absence of curbing. The estimated assessment per
residence is approximately $9,000 for Alternative 1 and approximately $4,500 for Alternative
2.
As I understand the Report, both Alternatives would provide the neighborhood with stable
roadways and satisfactory road surfaces for many years. Alternative 1 (Reconstruction) might
provide better drainage in certain areas, brought about by the additional grading, the
lowering of roads, and the installation of curbing. I know this outcome is desired by some
of the residents. The potential downside of such additional grading is that it could damage
the root systems of many mature oak trees which line our streets, which fear I happen to
share. As far as aesthetics are concerned, some neighbors (including my wife) prefer the
more pristine, almost rural appearance of no curbs (as has been the condition since initial
development in the early 1950's), while others may prefer the more modern suburban
development appearance of curbing.
In my opinion the paving issue really comes down to this: curbs with a $9000 assessment, or
no curbs with a $4,500 assessment. I'm sure we have some neighbors for whom the $4,500
difference is a minor matter. For others, however, including my family and perhaps others
living on a fixed income, $4,500 is simply too much to pay for whatever amenity curbing may
provide. Thus, the Fabel family urges you to select Alternative 2 (Reclamation) for the 2013
improvements.
Thank you very much for your consideration, and thank you for your service to the residents
of Arden Hills.
Tom Fabel
1550 Edgewater Ave., Arden Hills
1
John Anderson
From: John Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 7:56 AM
To: Vic Cox
Cc: Terry Maurer
Subject: RE: rain gardens request
Attachments: 1-4-13 rain garden maint.pdf
http:/lbluethumb.org/raingardens/
Vic
Attached is a mailing that we sent out yesterday that hopefully answers some of your questions on maintenance of rain
gardens. Also the link above is information on the design and construction of rain gardens. Hopefully this helps answer
your questions. Take a look at the material and let me know if you have more questions.
john Anderson PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, PIN 55112-5743
(651) 792-7846 janderson(@cityofardenhills.org
EN WLL6
From: Vic Cox ]
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 9:28 PM
To: John Anderson
Subject: rain gardens request
Hello John,
Thank you for your helpful note. I would like to know more about rain gardens. If you have any useful PDF
files or links regarding rain gardens please send them to me.
Thank you for consideration of my request,
Vic Cox
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i
On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 11:31 AM, John Anderson<JAnderson@cityofardenhills.org>wrote:
Mr.Cox
Thank you for your questions about the proposed street improvements in your neighborhood. Here are my comments
on your questions.
1. The reconstruction option does have the potential to last longer than reclamation. This is due to a number of
factors including the potential for edge deterioration with no curb and gutter, less efficient/effective drainage collection
with no curb and gutter and potential for underlying soil problems not being corrected because they are not exposed by
digging down. With this being said either option can produce a stable road surface that should perform its intended
purpose for many years.
2. Rain gardens are most successful when they are located in the proper setting and receive adequate maintenance.
When we mentioned front yard in the survey we intended to include all boulevard areas along the street. If you are
situated on a corner lot this would apply to all sides of your lot that abuts the street. The flatter the grades are,the
easier it is to create the rain garden and create more effective volume
3. Thank you for your comments on tennis court vs.trees question.
We plan to include all written comments in our presentation to the city council on January 14, 2013.
John Anderson PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743
(651) 792-7846 janderson(@cityofardenhills.ore
2
■Mrs.
EN IHI LLS
From: Victor Cox Jr ]
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 8:48 PM
To: John Anderson
Cc: Ed Dickinson
Subject: 2013 payment management survey comments
Hello John,
Regarding the survey and the last informational meeting I have a few questions:
1. Considering the two to one cost ratio of the two payment methods, what are the advantages of the
reconstruction method? In other words, does one "get what they paid for"? At the meeting there was an
apparent reluctance to say that it would last longer but it was mentioned that the edges were more protected
from injury with the reconstruction method. Please comment.
2. Rain gardens were only mentioned for the front yard but no consideration was made for corner lots such as
mine at 3161 Ridgewood Road. In my case the lay of the land is flat on the Glen Hill side but steeply rises
from the edge on Ridgewood. Therefore, it seems to me that the Glen Hill side is better suited for a rain garden.
Please comment.
3. 1 think it would be foolish and expensive to tear up the tennis court to create a rain garden. I would much
rather give up trees on the edge of the marsh.
3
I look forward to your comments,
Sincerely,
Vic Cox
Confidentiality Statement:The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information that is legally privileged.This information is intended
only for the use of the individuals or entities listed above.If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution,or
action taken in reliance on the contents of these documents is strictly prohibited.If you have received this information in error,please notify the sender immediately
and arrange for the return or destruction of these documents.
4
John Anderson
From: John Anderson
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 9:10 AM
To: 'Westhop'
Cc: David Grant; Brenda Holden; Fran Holmes; edwerner88 @yahoo.com; nick @llgardens.com;
Terry Maurer
Subject: RE: 2013 Pavement Management Plan
If you would like to stop by City Hall at 1:30 that would work just fine,see you then
John Anderson
From: Westhop
Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 9:07 AM
To: John Anderson
Cc: David Grant; Brenda Holden; Fran Holmes; edwerner88 @yahoo.com; nick @llgardens.com; Terry Maurer
Subject: RE: 2013 Pavement Management Plan
Thanks for being available on such short notice. I'm free from 1:30 on this afternoon. What
time works for you? Nancy
From: John Anderson fmailto:]Anderson @cityofardenhills.org]
Sent: Monday, January 7, 2013 7:43 AM
To: Westhop
Cc: David Grant; Brenda Holden; Fran Holmes; edwerner880yahoo.com; nick @llgardens.com; Terry Maurer
Subject: RE: 2013 Pavement Management Plan
Ms.Jacobson
I will be available all day today Monday January 7th to meet with you to discuss to 2013 PMP. We have had a great
response to the survey we are conducting and welcome the opportunity to collect as much feedback from the
neighborhood that can be passed on to the City Council. Feel free to stop by City Hall today so we can discuss your
questions and suggestions.
John Anderson PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743
(651) 792-7846 ianderson(acityofardenhills.org
r
EN LS
1
From: Westhop� _
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 201 3:
To: John Anderson
Cc: David Grant; Brenda Holden; Fran Holmes; edwerner88@yahoo.com; nick@Ilgardens.com
Subject: 2013 Pavement Management Plan
John Anderson,
Hello again. I appreciate the opportunity to further respond to the 2013 Pavement Management Plan. Also, the
City deserves praise for street paving policies which are flexible and responsive to the needs and concerns of
individuals and their neighborhoods.
My November 26th email to you was a detailed response to the feasibility report in which I proposed, among
other things, a narrower Asbury Avenue. I want to repeat and refine my comments as this time, as the public
hearing is approaching and I haven't gotten any substantial response from the City to this narrower street
option. I also have a few questions that have come up since the survey was sent out.
1. Requirement for stormwater treatment
a. Do the number of raingardens identified in the feasibility report equal the amount of area
needed for storm water treatment?
b. Will the proposed raingardens be sufficient for storm water treatment, or will there still be a need
for tree and/or tennis court removal?
c. Does the area of stormwater treatment identified as either the woods by Snelling Avenue or the
tennis court equal the amount of storm water treatment area necessary for the neighborhood?
2. Asbury Avenue
a. In my November 26th email I asked the City to consider a narrower Asbury Avenue roadway
section. This would provide about 6' of flat area for raingarden use, and would preserve the side
slope and shrubs on the Northwestern side of the street. There is no earthen berm on College
property across from our house, and so the slope and its shrubs are an important screen
between us and the College and its ring road.
b. The narrower street would more closely match the street width of the adjacent Edgewater
Avenue. My professional experience is that a 24' wide road would adequately handle the level
of traffic within our neighborhood.
c. A narrower Asbury could utilize a radius at the outside edge of its intersection with Edgewater
that would unite the two streets at the same width. This radius would have several advantages.
i. More area of stormwater storage before and after the 1575 Edgewater
driveway.
ii. More distance to match the 1575 Edgewater driveway to the street
elevation.
iii. The radius would provide a cleaner edge for street maintenance and
snow removal.
My husband and I have been living at 3188 Asbury Ave for 15 years and hope to live here another 15 years, so
the decisions made now will affect us in the short and long term. When I participated with the Northwestern
College PUD application process several years ago I learned that it was necessary to make sure my concerns
are heard before a public hearing, and so I would appreciate an opportunity to meet with you regarding my
comments here. My work schedule only allows me Monday, Jan 7th, from early afternoon on, so I hope you will
be available. With such short notification I would also be willing to speak with you on the phone. I look forward
to hearing from you, and plan to attend the January 14th public hearing.
Sincerely,
2
Nancy Jacobson
=W
Confidentiality Statement:The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information that is legally privileged.This information is intended
only for the use of the individuals or entities listed above.If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution,or
action taken in reliance on the contents of these documents is strictly prohibited.If you have received this information in error,please notify the sender immediately
and arrange for the return or destruction of these documents.
3
John Anderson
From: Senay Kindler[ �]
Sent: Monday, January , 9:13 AM
To: John Anderson
Subject: Re: pavement management notice request
thanks for the information. I will contact you if I'd like to meet.
Senay Kindler
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 7:55 AM, John Anderson<JAnderson(i�cityofardenhills.org>wrote:
I am providing a link to the City's web site http://www.citvofardenhills.org/index.aspx?nid=218 where information is
available on the proposed 2013 PMP. The neighborhood meeting was held in Early October and the presentation from
that meeting is available at this link. Additionally there is a link to the feasibility study which describes the proposed
improvement options being considered. If you would like to meet with me at city hall I would be happy to bring you up
to speed on the project.
John Anderson PE
Assistant City Engineer
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743
(651) 792-7846 -ianderson@cityofardenhills.org
■..tlmm
EN
1
From: Senay Kindler [mailto- ]
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 4:52 PM
To: John Anderson
Subject: pavement management notice request
hello,
we received a 2013 pavement management program pubic hearing notice and in the notice another notice is
referenced in which the two options are described. We did not receive this first notice. If you could please send
us this notice before the January 14th meeting we would appreciate it. Our address is 1536 Edgewater Ave.
Arden Hills, MN 55112.
thank you,
Senay Kindler
Confidentiality Statement:The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential information that is legally privileged.This information is intended
only for the use of the individuals or entities listed above.If you are not the intended recipient,you are hereby notified that any disclosure,copying,distribution,or
action taken in reliance on the contents of these documents is strictly prohibited.If you have received this information in error,please notify the sender immediately
and arrange for the return or destruction of these documents.
2
2013 Pavement Management Program Project , SurveyMonkey
Survey
1. Name of Property Owner
Response
Count
32
answered question 32
skipped question 0
2. Address
Response Response
Percent Count
100.0% 32
100.0% 32
answered question 32
skipped question 0
3. Phone Number
Response
Count
30
answered question 30
skipped question 2
1 of 4
4. E-mail Address
Response
Count
23
answered question 23
skipped question 9
5. 1 would prefer to be contacted by
Response Response
Percent Count
phone 17.2% 5
e-mail 51.7% 15
US Postal Service 41.4% 12
answered question 29
skipped question 3
6. Street Rehabilitation The City is looking at two alternatives, one includes a full
reconstruction of the roadway and addition of concrete curb and gutter,the second
includes reclaiming the bituminous that is in place and repaving the roadway,without
adding new curb, but replacing some of the existing bituminous curb.
Response Response
Percent Count
I prefer the full reconstruction 15.6% 5
option
prefer the reclamation option 81.3% 26
I do not have a preference on the 3.1% 1
street rehabilitation option
answered question 32
skipped question 0
2of4
7. Storm Drainage The City will need to provide roughly 14,000 cubic feet of storm water
treatment somewhere in the neighborhood. Some areas considered include the upland
area of Johanna Marsh, the tennis court, and front yard rain gardens.
Response Response
Percent Count
Yes, I am interested in a rain
garden in my front yard and willing 52.0% 13
to maintain it.
Losing trees in Johanna Marsh is a 56.0% 14
major concern for me.
Losing the tennis court in
Johanna Marsh is a major 68.0% 17
concern for me.
answered question 25
skipped question 7
8. Other
Response Response
Percent Count
I have drainage problems
associated with the roadway/right - 40.0% 6
of way.
I have problems with my sewer or 20.0% 3
water service.
1 have an underground
irrigation system, invisible 66.7% 10
fence, or other electrical wiring
near the street.
answered question 15
skipped question 17
3 of 4
9. Please use this space to give more details on answers above or list other areas of
concern.
Response
Count
23
answered question 23
skipped question 9
4 of 4
Q1. Please use this space to give more details on answers above or list other areas of concern.
1 We purchased our home in September 2012 and the tennis court was a major Jan 5,2013 2:38 PM
plus for us since there is no playground or park within a one mile walk.We are
an active young family and losing the tennis court is a major concern for us.
We'd like to explore all other options before discussing losing the tennis courts.
Also,we did not receive any notice discussing the options (referenced in your
public hearing notice) I have contacted Mr.John Anderson to request a copy.
2 1 am not interested in a rain garden in my front yard as I have a sump pump Jan 4,2013 10:11 AM
operating in my basement now and do not need additional seepage. I do not
see any mention of work being done or the water system. Does that mean it is
considered satisfactory. We have had I believe four breaks within the last few
years with 3 adjoining lots which concerns me. Water collects at end of
driveway.
3 We are looking forward to this street improvement project. We as an association Jan 2,2013 9:09 AM
would like more information as to the care and maintenance of rain gardens.
4 The tennis court played a significant role in our decision to move here last Jan 2,2013 9:06 AM
month.
5 Since the January 14th meeting will include a discussion about rain gardens any Jan 2,2013 9:05 AM
information about the care and maintenance of rain gardns should be sent to us
and the neighborhood before the January 14th meeting. Edgewater is either icy
in the winter or has too many potholes to safely walk.
6 First of all,thank you for requesting neighborhood input in this project. My Jan 1,2013 8:13 PM
property is on the corner of Ridgewood Rd and Edgewater Ave. My side yard
borders Ridgewood and front yard faces Edgewater. I am directly across the
street(Ridgewood)from Johanna Marsh and the tennis court. I have reviewed
both street rehabilitation plans and favor the reclamation project. I have
significant concerns regarding any loss of trees along any streets as well as in
Johanna Marsh. The proposal recommends a filtration basin along Ridgewood
Rd on my property side of the street as well as a rain garden. I have a couple
questions regarding both in terms of appearance and how they may affect my
access to my back yard as my only utility and lawn care equipment access is
from the side street(Ridgewood)at the south end of my property. Additionally, I
have an irrigation system along both Ridgewood Rd and Edgewater Ave and
have questions regarding any necessary changes or relocation. If raingardens
are insufficient for storm water treatment and Johanna Marsh needs to be
considered, I favor the retention of the trees in Johanna Marsh first and then the
tennis court. And obviously, if the tennis court needs to be removed I favor a
drainage pond that is functional but environmentally and aesthetically pleasing.
Thank you for hearing my concerns.
7 1 see no reason for widening the street. We all have large driveways which take Dec 27,2012 8:09 AM
care of cars except for special events.
8 No problems with losing the tennis court. Dec 26,2012 9:05 AM
9 1 would be glad to have a rain garden on the Glenhill side of my corner lot. I am Dec 26,2012 9:04 AM
willing to have a rain garden on the Ridgewood side BUT only north of the
driveway.
3of4
Q1. Please use this space to give more details on answers above or list other areas of concern.
10 Ridgewood Road drainage culvert in front yard. Dec 26, 2012 9:02 AM
11 Thank you for conducting this survey. I believe Asbury is perfect for reclamation, Dec 19, 2012 11:30 AM
and to save or not spend more money is positive.
12 1 think an evaluation by a forester is needed to determine the impact of Dec 18, 2012 9:22 AM
reconstruction vs. reclamation on the mature trees close to the street. Absent
that, I support reclamation as it likely would do less damage to tree roots.
13 1 definitely want concrete curbs and gutters. The bituminous curbs are a joke- Dec 18, 2012 8:23 AM
the first snow and the plows take them out on a street like ours which runs at an
angle. If you don't put in concrete, I will.
14 We are concerned about(1)trees, (2)landscaping, and (3)slopes along Dec 18, 2012 8:21 AM
Edgewater Avenue. $4,500 is also a big deal to us.
15 -not great water pressure-if the tennis court has to go, it would be too bad-I Dec 18, 2012 8:07 AM
like the idea of rain gardens, but I would not have time to maintain one-few in
our neighborhood are maintained correctly- I have trees near the road that I am
concerned about- I would have difficulty funding$9,000 whereas$4,500 might
be possible-I do not want curbs
16 Overflow and flooding are a concern. Dec 18, 2012 8:04 AM
17 1 have concerns about rain gardens not being maintained. We have sewer main Dec 18,2012 8:02 AM
drain backups often. Thank you! We appreciate what you do for our community.
18 For#8-we just moved in so I don't know this for sure. My husband gives the Dec 18,2012 7:57 AM
neighborhood kids free tennis lessons every summer. These courts mean a lot
to this neighborhood.
19 we have a sprinkler system Dec 18, 2012 7:51 AM
20 1 prefer the money be spent in other ways. Burying electrical lines would seem Dec 18,2012 7:48 AM
to me a better use of my tax dollars. I have 2 rain gardens and would be happy
to have more.
21 Losing the tennis court is a major loss. Losing buffer trees is a huge loss too. Dec 18, 2012 7:46 AM
22 1 will help with the garden fronting Northwestern College. Dec 18,2012 7:46 AM
23 The water main on Edgewater has broken in front of my house at least 4 times Dec 10, 2012 8:26 AM
and the street never drains properly.Will you be replacing the water main?
Some residents are concerned about losing trees.You can take mine. I will plant
new ones just to get a decent looking street with concrete curbs and gutters. My
feeling is that curbs and gutters will improve the value of our property more then
the reclamation option. Losing the tennis court doesn't bother me but I can see
where it could for those who like to play tennis.
4of4