Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP 08-21-2000 . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112-5794 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING/WORKSESSION, CITY HALL MONDAY, AUGUST 21, 2000,4:45 P.M. 4:45 P.M. 1. Call to Order 5:40 P.M. 2. Recess 5:45 P.M. 3. Reconvene for City Council Worksession Discussion Items 5:45 P_M. a. Ramsey County Department of Public Works, Jim Tolaas . . County Road I and Schutta Road . Highways 96/1 0 Intersection 6:30 P.M. b, Ingerson Road, Discussion of Recommendations 7:00 P.M. c. 2001 Budget . Second Cut of Proposed Budget with Input from July Worksession . Pavement Management Plan (PMP) . 2001/02 Project Scope 7:30 P.M_ 4. Miscellaneous Items a. Staff Comments b. Council Comments 8:00 P.M. 5. Adjourn The above times may vary depending upon lenglh of issue discussion. -- PHONE: (651) 633.5676 . FAX (651) 633.7839 08/17/00 THV 16:00 FAX 6126337839 City of Arden Hills ~ 001 ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* . TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST, TIME lISAGE T PGS, SENT RESVLT 3244 4821262 08/17 16:00 00'31 I OK . . 08/17/00 THU] 6: 01 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMTSSlO\ OK TX/RX NO CO\\ECTION TEL CONNECT I ON ID ST, TIME lISAGE T PGS, SENT RESVLT . . City of Arden Hills rm 00] I $$$****************** *** TX REPORT :f:** ********************* 3245 6123701378 IlR\\, INC, 08/17 16:01 00'26 ] OK 08/17/00 THC 16:02 FAX 6126337839 City of Arden Hills Ii!J 001 ********************* TX REPORT *** ********************* . TRA'iSJlISSION OK TXlRX 'i0 CONNECT! 01\ TEL CONNECT! 01\ ID ST. TDlE USAGE T PGS. SE'iT RESULT 3243 63,3.3846 08/17 16:02 00'44 1 OK . . 08/17/00 THe 15:56 FAX 6126337839 TRANSMI SSION OK TX/IU NO CONNECTIO'i TEL CONNECTIO'i ID ST. TD1E USAGE T PGS. SE'iT RESULT . . City of Arden Hills ~OOl ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* 3240 6286833 08/17 15:56 00'26 1 OK 08/17/00 THC 15: 58 FAX 6126337839 TRA'iSMISSION OK TXlRX NO CONNECTION TEL CONNECTION ID ST, TIME CSAGE T PGS, SENT RESULT City of Arden Hills I4i 001 I ********************* *** TX REPORT ********************* 3242 7637060891 08/17 15:58 00'26 1 OK . . 08/17/00 THU 16:03 FAX 6126337839 TRA'iSlllSSION OK TXlRX ~D CON\ECT lDN TEL CON'iECTIDN 10 ST, TIllE USAGE T PGS, SE'iT RESFLT . . City of Arrten Hills Ig] 00 I ********************* *** TX REPORT *** ********************* :3246 2281753 08/17 16:03 00'27 1 OK ........ . CITY OF ARDEN HILLS 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112-5794 August 8, 2000 Jim Tolaas, P.E., Project Manager Ramsey County DepaJtrnent of Public Works Administration/Land Survey 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Jim: . Thank you for confirming your attendance at the City Council Worksession scheduled on Monday, August 21, 2000. Due to other pending business, we're estimating that 5:30 p.m. would be the approximate time that the Council would be addressing the County Road I issue on the agenda. We have also allowed time for an update on the Highways 96/1 0 intersection. We look forward to your attendance, and the ensuing discussion. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Enclosure cc: City Council Terrance R. Post, City Accountant Dwayne Stafford, Public Works Director Dan Soler, Traffic Engineer, Ramsey County . PHONE: (651) 633-5676 . FAX (651) 633-7839 F\LE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS 4364 WEST ROUND LAKE ROAD ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112-5794 ....-- . June 30, 2000 Jim Tolaas, P.E., Project Manager Ramsey County Department of Public Works Administration/Land Survey 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 S1. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Jim: The City of Arden Hills is in receipt of your letter dated June 13, 2000, regarding cost participation and further clarification of the County Road I Reconstruction Project in Shoreview, and future intersection improvements at Schutta Road. After reviewing this letter, the City Council has requested your attendance at one of their future Council Worksessions to discuss the County Road I "No Parking" resolution. We have a Worksession scheduled for Monday, August 21, 2000 at 4:45 p.m. Please . contact IDe as soon as possible to let me know if this will work into your schedule. Thank you for your cooperation. Enclosure cc: City Council Terrance R. Post, City Accountant Dwayne Stafford, Public Works Director Dan Soler, Traffic Engineer, Ramsey County . PHONE: (651) 633.5676 . FAX (651) 633.7839 RAMSEY COUNTY Department of Public Works Paul L. Kirkwold, P.E., County Engineer Daniel G. Schacht, P.E., Acting Director ADMINISTRATIONILAND SURVEY 50 West Kellogg Blvd., Suite 910 S1. Paul, MN 55102' (651) 266.2600' Fax 266-2615 E-mail: Public_Works@co.ramsey_mn.us SL~ mifL} df}rJiNJ ~6'iY~V .. ~ -" .~ ENG INEERlNG/OPERA TIONS 3377 N. Rice Street Shoreview, MN 55126 (651) 484-9104 . Fax 482-5232 June 13, 2000 R,.n c\..~< Joe Lynch, City Administrator City of Arden Hills Round Lake Business Center 4364 West Round Lake Road Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112-5794 JUN 1 G 200D Cl-V I';C " I, U, Subject: County Road I Reconstruction -- Cost Participation Further Clarification Dear Joe: . The City of Arden Hills has expressed concern for cost participation on future improvements to County Road I, particularly with respect to future intersection improvements atSchutta Road. It is my understanding that much of that concern is based on perceived deviations from the County's established cost policy for this years project and more specifically its application toShoreview's new Rice Creek Parkway connection. First of all, cost participation on the current County Road I reconstruction project does follow the established policy for cost sharing on County State Aid Highway Projects -- including Shoreview's share of costs at Rice Creek Parkway. The only deviation made on the project related to Arden Hills, with the County waiving City participation on right of way acquisition and concrete curb and gutter. The waiver was based on two factors; 1) that it was not reasonable to place the City in the difficult position of trying to assess the Minnesota Department of Transportation for property improvements (curb and gutter), and 2) that right of way needs were based on core County roadway needs, not City amenities such as sidewalks or special landscape features. City right of way participation was not waived because "no cost" was incurred......considerable compensation was made to MnDOT in the form of property improvements (ornamental fence, landscaping, driveway improvementsetcs.). . Shoreviews cost participation involved several project items, the majority linked to Rice Creek Parkway impacts to County Road I design requirements; 1) widening under the bridge, 2) ramp revisions, and 3) signalization at both ramp terminals. Those impacts are assigned to the City as per established policy and the City in turn passed them on to the developer. With respect to signals, it is true that Shoreview is paying all costs on both signals and administering their installation. That is because neither intersection meets warrants based on existing conditions. Under current policy, neither the County or the State can participate on signals which do not meet warrants. If Shoreview had been willing to wait for warrants to be met (perhaps five years out), the County and State would have assumed 50% and 25% respectively on the east terminal and 67% and 33% respectively on the west terminal. Minnesota's First Home Rule County printed OIl TCCjcled paper with a minimum of 10% post-consumOT contt'nt ~ . . With respect to future improvements to County Road I from Schutta Road to Lexington Avenue, the established cost pmicipation policy will govern. The County's plan will provide for geometric improvements at Schutta, but not signals -- unless warrant analysis supports installation or if either or both Cities' lobby for it. If the signal is justified, Ramsey County would pay for 50% of associated costs and each City would assume 25%. Conversely, if existing conditions do not meet warrants, all costs (100%) associated with the signal must be borne by the City(s). Our staff is currently preparing a Project Development Report for County Road I between Lexington Avenue and Schutta Road. Major project elements and cost participation will be addressed in the report. Public information meetings and Council presentations will be scheduled after further coordination between City and County staff. One remaining issue pertains to "No Parking" provisions for the portion of County Road I currently under construction -- City approval was requested several months ago. It is my understanding the request was initially misplaced due to City staff turnover, and more recently held pending resolution of City funding concerns. Hopefully, this letter has addressed City concerns and clears the way for processing the "No Parking" request. Please let me know if any additional information is needed. Sincerely Yours, ?<,/ ___<L ~ ~es E. Tolaas, P.E. Project Manager cc. Dan Soler, Traffic Engineer r e e e r e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 17, 2000 TO: Joe Lynch, City Administrator FROM: Dwayne Stafford, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Ingerson Road Improvement Group e Back!!round The Arden Hills City Council was presented with a preliminary feasibility report at a eOlillcil meeting last November, which identified the Ingerson Road/Hamline Avenue area for street improvements in 2000. Many residents attended an inforn1ational meeting and the council meeting and expressed dissatisfaction with the proposed improvements for various reasons. At the February 14th, Council Meeting, the Council approved the formation of a review group to study the need for the project, (what brought us to this point) and to review city street standards and other design options, followed by a recommendation to Council from their point of view. Council appointed Linda Swanson, an Ingerson Road resident to chair the group. The review group would consist of five residents of the proposed project area, including the chairperson, two council members to act as liaisons, two Arden Hills residents not from the project area, the City Engineer and the Public Works Director. City Council members, the City Engineer and the Public Works Director would not have input on the gTOUp'S final recommendation to the City Council. Review Group Meetin\:s The Ingerson Road Improvement Group met ten times over a period of six months. Discussions ranged over all aspects of street improvcments and storm water quality improvcments. Gucst speakers included the Public Works Director from Maplewood and represcntativcs from thc Ricc Creek Watershed District. City Accountant, Terry Post, also attcnded one meeting to explain the City's Assessment Policy. About half of the discussions were related to rain gardens. The meetings were open to anyone, and many rcsidcnts attendcd one or more of the meetings. Outcome Although thc City Engineer and Public Works Director's recommendations may differ from those offcrcd by the review group, the City is very appreciative ofthe group's open- mindedness, hard work and dedication. Everyone learned from the experience and a mutual respect was gained for each other among all participants. e Attachments Attached are recommendations from the Arden Hills City Engineer and Public Works Director for improvements to streets in the Ingerson Road/Hamline Avenue area. 1 2000 Pavement Management Program Ingerson Neighborhood Draft Recommendations from Staff e The following recommendations from staff are provided for the use of the City Council in detennining the direction to proceed with the 2000 PMP. The recommendations are a result of discussions held at task force meetings and discussions between the Public Works Director and City Engineer during the past several months. Does the selection of the Ingerson Neighborhood for the 2000 PMP have merit? YES The neighborhood was selected due to several factors whieh independently may not be significant enough to raise the neighborhood priority, but collectively push this neighborhood to the top of the list for reconstruction. . Pavement Condition Index: The weighted neighborhood index is approximately 56 and at the lower end of the spectrum of City neighborhoods. In the past reconstruction of streets has been generally done when PCI's are below 60. . Drainage: The neighborhood has low, flat areas along Ingerson Road between Hamline A venue and Fernwood Street and along Cannon A venue which routinely pond water for several hours following rainfall events. Drainage infrastructure in the neighborhood is lacking in these areas and several backyards apparently experience routine flooding. e . Water Quality: The eastern neighborhood runoff empties directly into Lake Josephine untreated and the western neighborhood runoff empties into a wetland/ditch system on the west side of the neighborhood. The potential for improvement of the water quality of runoff running directly into natural water bodies is a contributing factor in the selection of this neighborhood. . State Aid Funding: The city state aid construction account balance will be approximately $430,000.00 in 2001. Of the five highest priority neighborhoods, only Ingerson Road and Hamline Avenues are eligible for state Aid funds. The only other city street programmed for reconstruction in the near future that is also eligible for state aid funding is West Round Lake Road. The timing is right for use of these funds for a neighborhood project. . Standards: The streets identified for reconstruction do not meet current city standards for width, pavement section or curb and gutter. Although as a part of the city wide review of street conditions, staff is recommending revisiting some standards. The underlying goal of the city PMP is to bring some level of unifonnity of design throughout the city - currently this neighborhood does not have much unifonnity. . City Infrastructure Management: The City has the responsibility of insuring safe, functional streets and utilities throughout the city. Since financial resources are limited, a consistent program of improvements is neeessary to insure that the City is not saddled with excessive costs to improve its infrastructure down the road. The complete reconstruction of a street is financially viable about every 40-50 years based upon current city budgeting and mileage of streets under city jurisdiction. The proposed improvements are on streets that have not been reconstructed since their original construction (approximately 40 years) and have several . deficiencies as noted above. . e . . The proposed improvements are a substantial investment into City infrastructure which should have a positi ve effect on the neighborhood property values as well. The City of Eagan had estimated typical residential street improvements to add $3,000.00 to $4,000.00 of value to properties. . Should the reconstructed streets include concrete curbs and gutters? Yes The existing streets do not have concrete curb and gutter however some sections of the streets have deteriorated bituminous curbs while others have "sod" curbs at the edge of the bituminous pavement. Hamline Avenue currently does have an existing rural section with ditches or low areas on both sides of the roadway. The area grades range from very flat to moderately hilly and most front yards slope into the roadway and have trees relatively close to the edge of the road. Staff recommends that concrete barrier (vertical face) curb and gutter be installed throughout the project with the exception of areas that may be selected for rain gardens or the rural section of Hamline A venue. Concrete barrier curbs provide a solid "bookend" to the bituminous pavement, provide for better snow plowing, less potential of cars running over front lawns and increased efficiency of the drainage system. The existing topography of the neighborhood lends itself to curbing and concrete curbing is a great deal more durable than bituminous curbing as is apparent by the dilapidated condition of the exisling bituminous eurbing. In rain garden areas or rural section areas, a 24 inch concrete edge strip (with no vertical curb) is recommended in order to provide the "bookend" for the bituminous pavement and also blend with the concrete curb look throughout the rest of the neighborhood. Street Structure Staff recommends that the streets be removed and reconstructed to current standards including a sand subbase, gravel base and bituminous surface. The sand subbase is desirable in order to provide subdrainage for the integrity of the roadway section. The task force discussed the possibility of overlays or cold-in-place recycling of the pavements without a 2 foot cut. Cold-in- place recycling is significantly cheaper in the short run however the roadway subbase would still be more susceptible to freeze thaw and saturation after rainfall events than the recommended sand subbase section. In addition, overlays and in place recycling don't allow for corrections to low points, humps or other undesirable surface irregularities which would be corrected with a full depth reconstruction. The existing pavement of Femwood Court is in very good condition today (1999 rating of 86) and may not warrant replacement due to the very limited amount of traffic on it. Staff recommends constructing edge strips and/or concrete curbing around Femwood Court and overlaying the surface in lieu of full reconstruction. The merits of a drainage subbase along the Ingerson Road "hill" east ofPernwood Street were discussed since hills generally shed water very well as opposed to flatter profiles and therefor have less need for subdrainage. Although these points are true, the monetary savings would be approximately $25.00/per foot of roadway (IO% of roadway cost), differential settling at the transition from sand subbase to no subbase would likely cause a dip or bump in the roadway in that area and a lower level of performanee would still be expected from the non subbase roadway over the long run. Staff recommends that a drainage subbase be included throughout Ingerson Road. e Street Width Harnline A venue and Ingerson Road: 30 feet face to face of curb. (local collector) Carlton Drive, Cannon Avenue and Pernwood Street: 28 feet face to face of eurb. (local) Ingerson Court and Pernwood Court: 24 feet face to face of curb. (special case) Either driveway aprons or concrete valley gutters are proposed for Pernwood Court and Ingerson Court to help delineate these two minor cul-de-sacs from Ingerson Road. Hamline A venue Closure Staff recommends that Harnline A venue be closed and removed between Ingerson Road and Tiller Lane. The cost to reconstruct this segment of roadway would be much greater than the e average for the neighborhood and may cause some encroachment into the adjacent wetland if widened to 28-32 feet. Virtually no assessable properties lie on this segment of roadway raising the city cost of the project. The traffic movements provided by the roadway could be replaced by Dunlap Street and Pernwood Street. Traffic on those two streets will increase, the test performed earlier this summer indicated an ADT increase on Dunlap Street from IOO to 300 however, an ADT of 300 is still considered typical for a residential type street. A moderate speed increase was also measured during the test apparently as a result of the closure however speeds generally stayed below 30 mph. The project would include reconstructed curves and landscaping as necessary at the Hamline A venue and Ingerson Road intersection and at the Tiller Lane and Cannon Avenue intersection to present a smooth, finished design and not have the closure appear as an afterthought. A pedestrian/bicycle trail should be included between Ingerson Road and Tiller Lane in the general area of Hamline A venue however the trail could meander to highlight any regrading, ponding or stream construction which may occur in the area. Water Quality Improvements A. Pernwood Channel Staff recommends that some permanent ponding be created in the Pcrnwood Channel in order to improve the water quality of runoff entering Lake Josephine. The existing picnic area on the west side of the channel should essentially remain intact. Some of the edges of the channel . should be extended to the east in a serpentine nature to create the additional volume. A weir . . . should be installed as close to Lake Josephine as possible to retain the maximum amount of IUnnoff (thereby increasing water quality). A pedestrian crossing should be incorporated into the channel improvements eonnecting Fernwood Court and Ingerson Court (this could be incorporated into a weir, bridge or culvert crossing. Landscaping should be included with the channel improvements including trees, shrubs and natural grasseslflowers etc. B. HamlinefTH 51 area Staff recommends that some permanent ponding be created in this area in order to improve the waler quality of runoff generated from the Tiller Lane storm sewer system, TH 51 and the western end of Ingerson Road. The ponding improvements should be in the form of expanded channels with weirs to retain water (in lieu of one large pond) prior to releasing it from the neighborhood. The channels should be regraded to look as natural as possible. A significant portion of this area is privately owned and would not be available for ponding unless the City acquires drainage easement rights or fee title to the property. The existing wetland between Tiller Lane and Ingerson Road could be modified to include a small peninsula on the west side to create better circulation of runoff through the wetland. A pedestrian/bike trail should be included in this area to connect Ingerson Road and Tiller Lane. Landscaping should be included to give the area a more natural look. Removal of existing trees should be minimized in the area and the existing screening effect of the trees along Hamline A venue should be maintained and enhanced where possible. C. Rain Gardens During the course of the lask force meetings, the feasibility of incorporating of rain gardens into the project was investigated. Rain gardens are small depressions (planted with shrubs and flowers etc.) adjacent to the roadway which are intended to capture runoff from very small areas (typically a single lot and the adjacent street) and allow that runoff to seep into the ground in lieu of colleeting it in storm sewers. Rain gardens are excellent for enhancing water quality and theoretically reduce the size of storm sewers and regional ponding in a given area. In order to be most effective, the gardens should be constructed in several lots in a gi ven area and best results occur with granular subsoils which promotes a high amount of infiltration. Three areas were identified within the project area as possible loeations for rain gardens due to the relatively flat terrain in these areas. The areas identified are Ingerson Road west of Fernwood Street, the low area of Carlton Drive (approximately 4 lots), and the stretch of Harnline Avenue south of Ingerson Road (approximately 6 lots). Although these areas have been identified based upon the flatness of the existing terrain a number of additional factors must be considered before proceeding with rain gardens. Resident Approval Conflicts with driveways Conflicts with water services Confli cts with trees Gardens should not span over property lines (two owners would need to approve) Reduction of soil cover over watermain (requires insulation) Reduction of soil cover over sanitary sewer (requires insulation) Conflicts/impacts to underground utilities NSP, US West, Media One etc. Acceptance of design by MnDOT State Aid Cost of gardens Based upon the above factors staff recommends that rain gardens be eonsidered for further study only along Hamline A venue south of Ingerson and the Carlton low point. . . . .- , '. . FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INGERSON PAVEMENT PROJECT REVIEW GROUP August 17, 2000 . Linda Swanson, Resident and Chairperson Steve Baker, Member of the Arden Hills' Planning Committee Teresa Cain, Resident Representative Dick Hanson, Resident Terry Nygaard, Member of the Arden Hills' Operations and Finance Committee Christine Peterson, Resident Yvonne Wilken, Resident TABLE OF CONTENTS . EXECUTIVE SUMMARy.............. ....... ..................................... ............ .......... .......... ... .... ........ ...... ..............3 GENERAL STREET DESIGN ................ .................................... ................ ..................... ........ ........ ... ...... ..... 7 STREET CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ............... ...................................... ......................... ....... ...... ...........10 STREET WIDTHS.......... ...... ......... ............................... ....... ........ ................ ............... .......... ..... .............. ..... 11 STORMW A TER MANAGEMEl\T ........... ... ................................ ........ ...... .... ..... ................ ..... ...... ........ ..... 16 Alternative Methods/Rain Gardens ......... .......... ............ ... ........ ........ .... .... ......... .... ............... ........ ...... ....... 18 Acceptance of Rain Gardens by Ingerson Project Residents.....................................................................20 Financial Resources for Alternative Methods ....,.,.....,....,............................._._....._.................................,,21 Curbs and Gutters........................................................................................................................ ..............22 Water Holding Ponds........................ __...................................................................................................... 23 Closure of Hamline .......................... __....................................................................................................... 25 STREET STRUCTURE ...... ...... .......... ............................................. ................... .......... ........... ...... ...............27 LAKE JOSEPHINE ......... ................. ........................................................... ....... ............... ......... ...... .... ........ 28 NEIGHBORHOOD/RESIDENT INVOLVEMENT ................................... ...................... ......... ........ ...... .... 29 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ .__.........__...................................30 APPENDIX A - BACKGROUND ........... ... ...................................................... .......... ... .... .... ... .............. ......32 APPENDIX B - REFERENCED ARTICLES.................... ... ......... .............. ..... ........ ....... .......................... ...35 . . 2 August 17, 2000 e . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following summarizes the recommendations ofthe Ingerson Project Review Group ("Review Group"). Information relevant to the recommendations and background information follow the Executive Summary: . Shonld the Ingerson Project roadwaysl be included in the pavement program? The majority of the Review Group members do not believe or recommend that the Ingerson Project should proceed unless major modifications are made to the original BRW feasibility report, alternative methods are developed and designed and the needs and desires of the residents are incorporated into the final proposal. Some Ingerson Project residents feel that the implementation of the original BRW feasibility report would be destructive to the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. If the Council believes the original BRW feasibility proposal should be incorporated, it is the Review Group's recommendation that the residents be allowed to reject the project in its entirety. In years past, Pavement Management Programs (PMP) dealt only with roadway projects. The amount of impervious surface drastically affects water quality. In today's society and environment, any PMP currently adopted should not only serve the needs of the City and the residents but must incorporate good sound water quality standards. . Ifthe Ingerson roadways are included in the pavement program: . General Street Design Comments The Review Group members agree and acknowledge that the City has a responsibility to maintain existing roadways. The Review Group recognizes that it is the desire of the City and Council to deal with entire "neighborhoods" as opposed to only certain streets within a neighborhood in the various PMP projects. However, each roadway within a PMP should be reviewed and the PMP proposal should not merely incorporate rigid standards for every roadway within the project. The review should include, but not be limited to, the purpose of the roadways; the amount of traffic on the roadways; the current condition of each roadway within the project; the needs of the City; the needs and desires ofthe affected community/neighborhood; the end effect of the project on the neighborhood; the value of any project to the neighborhood; the end effect of the project on any water quality issues; etc. For example, both FeTIlwood Court and Ingerson Court only provide access to two (2) homes each whereas the remaining roadways within the Ingerson Project provide multiple vehicle access. FeTIlwood Court was repaved in the 90s and is in excellent shape. However, Ingerson Court has not been repaved lately and is not in good shape. The Review Group does not believe that FeTIlwood Court should be included within the Ingerson Project and/or held to the same standards and designs as Ingerson Court. In other words, each roadway within a PMP project should be reviewed to detcrmine how it "fits" within the project. ] The roadways included in the Ingerson Project include Ingerson Road, Ingerson Court, Femwood Road, Femwood Court, Hamline A venue, Cannon A venue, Tiller Lane, and Carlton Drive. 3 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS . Street Widths It is the recommendation of the majority of Review Group members that the current widths of the project roadways be maintained.2.3 . . Alternative Methods All Review Group members recommend that feasible cost effective and efficient alternative methods such as rain gardens be reviewed and analyzed for the Ingerson Project as a possible means of avoiding the installation of a storm sewer piping system. . Curbs and Gutters All Review Group members recommend that the Ingerson Project not include the installation of 6", or more, concrete curbs and gutters. The majority of neighborhood residents that responded to the Dec. 1999 neighborhood survey indicated that they are opposed to the installation of any curb and gutter system. From a water quality standpoint, installation of curbs and gutters may be detrimental. To maintain the integrity of the roadway without increasing the road width flat concrete edge bands could be installed. Surmountable curbs could or should be installed in areas that require control of water drainage. . Water Holding Ponds In the Area Between Hamline Ave. and Snelling Ave. Four (4) members of the Review Group believe that by incorporating alternative methods to address stormwater runoff, the holding ponds in the area between Hamline Ave. and Snelling Ave. are unnecessary. Three (3) members ofthe Review Group believe that the project should incorporate thc installation of a holding pond in this area. . Before any final decision about holding ponds is made, the City and Engineering staff should obtain additional information regarding the area, including whether it currently meets the needs from a water quality standpoint and information regarding the anticipated water quantity for this area. . Closure of Hamline Avenue The Review Group is split on whether Hamline Ave. should be permanently closed. If, however, Hamline Ave. north ofIngerson Road is not reconstructed and is closed, all Review Group members recommend the area be landscaped appropriately to maintain the natural setting of the area. A concern the Review Group has about the closure of Ham line Ave. is the detrimental effect it may have on the traffic speed in this area. Based upon current knowledge of the traffic speed in this area (fast speed around the Hamline/lngerson intersection), some Review Group members believe traffic speed may increase in this intersection if the stop signs are removed and/or if the 2 One member felt that the roads shonld only be increased 10 obtain nniformity with the rest of that road. In other words, if a portiou of the road was e.g. 24' and another portion of the same road was e.g. 26'; the entire road should be increased to e.g. 26'. . J One Review Group member felt that Hamline Ave. should be rebuilt to MSA standards and the remaining streets should be increase to 30'. 4 August 17. 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS e area is designed without taking into account area traffic speed. By landscaping appropriately, residents will utilize this area for recreational benefit. It is the recommendation ofthe Review Group that this area not only be landscaped appropriately but that design considerations be given in regards to the potential effect on traffic speed and residents' safety. . Street S tru ctu re The original BRW feasibility report suggested that all roadways within the Ingerson Project be reconstructed down to the subbase. The Review Group members recognize and acknowledge that the City must maintain the life of a roadway. The majority of Review Group members recommend that the current subbase structure of each roadway be reviewed individuallv, taking into account the roadway usage, to determine if it is necessary to reconstruct the subbase for that particular road. If a subbase does not need to be reconstructed, the road should merely undergo a 2"- 6" cold recycle overlay, provided that the end product is a road with a consistent life expectancy throughout, which is commensurate with reconstructed roads of the same type. . Lake Josephine Stream The original BR W feasibility report proposed to reconstruct the stream that runs into Lake Josephine by Femwood Court and Ingerson Road. A resident and/or the Lake Josephine Association (comprised of residents along Femwood Court and Ingerson Road) privately own this land. e The Review Group acknowledges that water quality standards must be addressed. By incorporating altemative methods for stormwater fUnoffin the Ingerson Project, the City can significantly decrcase the amount of water flowage into the Lake Josephine stream offIngerson Road. Before any design proposal is undertaken for this area, the City and Council should obtain further infomlation about whether or not tbe area/stream currently meets the needs of the City and water quality standards and the water quantity anticipated. The Review Gronp acknowledges that the Council has received recommendations submitted by the Lake Josephine Association. This land provides not only recreational value but also homeowner market value to the owners. For these rcasons, as well as the reasons cited below, the Ingerson Project residents as well as the Review Group members are opposed to the taking of any of this land. If, however, any changes are made to this private property (e.g. increase stream width by approximately 6"), the City should provide tangible and/or monetary consideration to the owners of any land impacted by the change. . Neighborhood/resident involvement Although the Review Group was not charged to make recommendations about future PMP proj ects, the Rcview Group does recommend that the process be modified to allow residents an e 5 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS earlier opportunity to have input into cach project. Specifically, the Review Group suggests the following process: 1. City staff prepare and publish a map of anticipated projects scheduled over the next five years; 2. City staff present conceptual designs to the affected residents of a project one (1) year in advance of the final feasibility report; 3. City staff provide a process and adequate time for residents' input by holding meetings with affected residents to explain details ofthe proposed project design once preliminary survey and design work has been completed; and 4. City staff consider residents' comments on the proposed design in developing the final feasibility report to the COlIDCil. 6 August 17, 2000 e e e . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL STREET DESIGN Rcview Group Recommendations: The Review Group members agree and acknowledge that the City has a responsibility to maintain existing roadways. The Review Group recognizes that it is the desire of the City and Council to deal with entire "neighborhoods" as opposcd to only ccrtain streets within a neighborhood in tbe various PMP projects. However, each roadway within a PMP should be reviewed and the PMP proposal sbould not merely incorporate rigid standards for every roadway within the project, The review should include, but not be limited to, the purpose of the roadways; the amount of traffic ou the roadways; the current condition of each roadway within the project; the needs of the City; the needs and desires of the affected community/neighborhood; the end effect of the project on the neighborhood; the value of any project to the neighborhood; the cnd effect of the project on any water quality issues; etc. For example, both Fernwood Court and Ingerson Court only provide access to two (2) homes each whereas the remaining roadways within the Ingerson Project provide multiple vehicle access. Fernwood Court was repaved in the 90s and is in excellent shape. However, Ingerson Court has not been repaved lately and is not in good shape. The Review Group does not believe that Fernwood Court should be included within the Ingerson Project and/or held to the same standards and designs as Ingerson Court. In other words, each roadway within a PMP project must be reviewed to determine how it "fits" within the project. The Review Group recognizes and acknowledges that eventually all roadways within a City must undergo some type of maintenance. However, there is a major distinction between roadway improvement and neighborhood redesign. It is the belief of some Review Group members that the original feasibility report prepared by BRW is too intrusive, broad and invasive. As stated by the American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and The Urban Land Institute: Residential streets should provide not only safe, efficient circulation for vehicles and pedeshians but should create positive aesthetic qualities for the users. The "character" of a residential street is influenced to a great extent by the paving width, horizontal and vertical alignments, and the landscape treatment of the street edges. Residential streets are commwlity spaces that should convey an image and scale appropriate to the neighborhood.4.5 4 Residential Streets, Second Edition, 1990, American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders, The Urban land Institute. S References to published articles herein are based upon research conducted principally by Linda Swanson, Chairperson. The Review Group as a whole did not undertake exhaustive research of available authorities. Copies of articles cited are not attached to this report. If the Council desires copies of all or any of the cited articles they should contact Linda Swanson. 7 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TIONS Although residents expect good and safe streets, they also desire aesthetically pleasing neighborhoods6 The American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and The Urban Land Institute further state that: . The design of a residential street should be appropriate to its functions. A residential street's functions include not only its place in the transportation system but its role as part of a residential community's living environment.... [And] [t]he design of a residential street should be appropriate to its functions. A residential street's functions include not only its place in the transportation system but its role as part of a residential community's living environment7 According to the Recommended Guidelines for Subdivision Streets, 1984, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), four (4) factors - safety, efficiency of service, livability, and economy - should guide the design of residential streets. The two most notable factors are: · First, local streets should be designed to discourage excessive speeds; and . Second, minimum area should be devoted to streets.8 The Institute of Transportation Engineers believes that the "design oflocal street systems must recognize the following factors": . Safety for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic; . Efficiency of service for all users; . Livability of the residential environment; . Economy ofland use, construction, and maintenance.9 . Guidelines for street design include: . Street planning should relate to overall community planning. · Traffic in residential areas should be kept to a minimum to reduce noise, congestion, and hazards to pedestrians. . The street is an important component of overall residential community design. Properly scaled and designed streets can create more attractive communities and contribute to a clearly defined sense of place. · Street design standards should permit flexibility in community design. They should allow street alignments to follow natural contours and preserve natural features or to respond to other design objectives such as the creation of more intimate urban-or village-scaled streetscapes. . Wherever possible, street layouts should be planned to avoid excessive stormwater runoff and the need for storm sewers. 6 Residential Streets, supra 7 Id.. 8 Id, 9 Id, . 8 August 17. 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS . . The amount of paved area should be kept to a minimum to reduce construction and maintenance costs, storrnwater runoff, and heat buildup. . In the interest of keeping housing affordable, street costs should be minimized. . Overdesign of streets should be avoided. Excessive widths or an undue concern with geometry more appropriate for highways encourages greater vehicle speeds. . Different streets have different functions and need to be designed accordingly. Blanket standards are inappropriate.IO The Institute of Transportation Engineers have also provided recommend guidelines for streets: . Street system design should discourage through traffic on local residential streets. . To discourage excessive speeds, streets should.. .not be designed to be wider than is necessary. . Local streets should be responsive to topography and other natural features from the standpoint of both economics and amenity. . The residential street should enhance the community's visual image. I I As stated above, we recognize that the City of Arden Hills' responsibility to its residents include street maintenance. However, the Review Group members believe it is imperative that the City also be flexible in its proposed projects so that the end project not only meets the needs (e.g. road pavement, water quality, etc.) ofthe City but also the needs and desires of the affected . community. Surrounding cities such as Golden Valley and Maplewood have also designed and developed PMPs. These cities recognize that although PMP programs are essential to the continuous growth and maintenance of the conllmmity, it is also imperative to meet the needs of the residents that are served by the PMPs. For any PMP project, both the City of Golden Valley and Maplewood attempt to maintain the existing neighborhood design.12 Water quality standards propOLmded by Federal and State EP A and local Watershed Districts continue to improve and be more extensive and stringent. Incorporating the current standards and recommendation in the Ingerson Project will avoid future expensive retrofit costs. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials state: [T]hat areas previously at low risk [to flood waters] may not remain so because development changes the watershed, making unwanted water appear in new places. . 10Id. I1Id. 12 Ken Haider, Public Works Director, City of Maplewood, May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting; City of Golden Valley PMP, http://www.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/streets/pmp.htm. 9 August 17. 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS Development tends to alter the flow of runoff during heavy rains. When you have cities that are growing quickly, the runoff patterns can be altered very easily by things like parking lots, driveways, sidewalks, streets and landscaping. 13 . As stated by numerous Arden Hills' residents at the January 10, 2000 Council meeting, one of the reasons why the residents moved to the Ingerson neighborhood was because of its aesthetic beauty. It is the recommendation of a majority of the Review Group members that the Ingerson Project not disturb the current design and makeup of the Ingerson neighborhood. STREET CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM In order to determine the types of improvements and the type of standards that should be imposed and incorporated into a street, including the streets within the Ingerson Project, one needs to determine how streets are classified. 14 The American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and The Urban Land Institute provide the following street classification systemJ5 Arterial. An arterial is a high-volume street that should have no residences on it. Its function is to conduct traffic between communities and activity centers and to connect communities to major state and interstate highways. (e.g. Snelling Avenue) Collector. As the principal traffic artery within residential or commercial areas, the collector carries relatively high traffic volumes and conveys traffic from arterial streets to lower-order . streets. Its function is to promote the free flow of traffic; as such, communities should not encourage parking or residences along a collector. The collector's secondary function is to serve abutting land uses. A collector street may also accommodate public transit such as buses. (e.g. Lexington and "main" Hamline [not residential HamlineJ)_ Subcollector. The subcollector provides passage to access streets and conveys traffic to collectors. Like the access street, the subcollector provides frontage and access to residential lots but also carries some through traffic to lower-order (access) streets. The subcollector is a relatively low-volume street. (e.g. residential Hamline, Ingerson Road, Tiller Lane) Access Street. The access street is designed to conduct traffic between dwelling units and higher-order streets. As the lowest-order streets in the hierarchy, the access street usually carries no through traffic and includes short streets, cul-de-sacs, and courts. (e.g. Cannon., Carlton Ave., Dunlap Ave., Fernwood Ave., Femwood Ct., Ingerson Ct.) 13 Flood Insurance, STAR, July 29, 2000. 14 Residential Streets, supra. IS The MN Local Road Research Board recommends that streets no longer be referred to as local, collector or arterial but rather living, mixed or traffic purpose streets. Such designations classifY streets according to their intended purposes which then "dictates the most appropriate traffic calming deviccs to implement." Effective Traffic Calm in f.! Avv/ications and Imvlementation, . MN Local Road Research Board, October 1998. 10 August 17. 2000 . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS Street Classes Based upon Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume: Access Street 0-250 cars Subcollector 250-1,000 cars Collector 1,000-3,000 carsl6 Accepting the above classification, the streets within the Ingerson Project would be classified as 17 subcollectors or access streets. STREET WIDTHS Review Group Recommendations: It is the recommcndation of the majority of Review Group members that the current widths oftbe project roadways be maintained. The initial BR W feasibility report for the Ingerson Project proposed the widening ofthe current street widths of approximately 24' - 28' to approximately 32'. The majority of Review Group members are opposed to the widening of any streets within the Ingerson Project from their existing widths. From the standpoint of safety, traffic, water quality and stormwater management, numerous articles have been written regarding the width of a neighborhood street. From a safety and traffic management aspect, the American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and the Urban Land Institute have made the following observations and comments: The width of a street should be based upon both the volume and type of expected traffic and the amount of on-street parking that will be generated as well as upon the place of the street in the street hierarchy (access street, subcollector, collector). Designers should select the minimum width that will reasonably satisfy all realistic needs, thereby minimizing construction and average annual maintenance costs. The tendency of many communities to equate wider streets with better streets and to design traffic and parking lanes as though the street were a "micro freeway" is a highly questionable practice. To discourage excessive speeds, streets should.. .not be designed to be wider than is necessary... [because ] [wider lanes] tend to encourage higher-speed driving. A wide access street also lacks the more intimate scale that otherwise makes it an attractive setting for housing. 16 Residential Streets, supra. 17 An average daily traffic volume and traffic speed study was conducted by the Ramsey County Sheriffs Department on behalf of the City of Arden Hills on Ingerson Road on August 30, 1999. The results of the study indicated that the ADT for Ingerson Road was 559 vehicles. II August 17. 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA nONS On subcollectors, a 26 foot-wide pavement provides either two parking lanes and a moving or traffic lane or one parking lane and two moving lanes. . A Federal Highway Administration study found that narrow street widths tend to reduce the speed at which drivers travel. The Institute of Transportation Engineers as well as The Urban Land Institute have also noted this study. IS The Center for Watershed Protection also believes that from a safety aspect, residential street width should be reduced: [W]idc residential streets are designed to promote relatively rapid traffic flow, at an average speed limit of30 mph on level or rolling terrain. The wider streets and better sight distances, however, encourage many drivers to exceed even this relatively high speed. High speeds, however, are not desirable in residential neighborhoods. One way to force drivers to slow down is to reduce street width.19 In its traffic calming guidelines, the Public Technology, Inc. offers the following insights: One myth is that straighter, wider streets are safer. In fact, they encourage higher speeds. Narrower streets, in contrast, calm traffic. Vehicle speeds decline. Drivers behave less aggressively and are more likely to obey traffic signs and signals. Pedestrians are more . comfortable. Traffic calming is used most often in residential areas to try to reduce speeding and 'cut- through traffic' that uses the neighborhood as a short-cut or a by-pass from clogged major roads. Traffic-calming design changes are self-enforcing, prompting motorists to instinctively slow or requiring them to take other routes. Americans engineer their roads to accommodate a fast speed, and then spend countless millions of dollars trying to enforce a lower speed limit. [Motorists] speed because the road allows them to speed.2o In addition to safety and traffic concerns, it is readily recognized that significant construction costs savings can be achieved by building narrower streets21 18 Better Site Desizn: A Handbook for Chanzinr:DeveloDment Rules in Your Community, Center for Watershed Protection (August, 1998). 19 Site Planninz for Urban Stream Protection, The Center for Watershed Protection and US EP A December, 1995). 20 Slow Down You're "oim: Too Fast! The Community Guide to Traffic Calminz. Public . Teclmology, Inc. (1998) 12 August I7, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS . The American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and The Urban Land Institute recommend the following pavement widths: Access Street Subcollector Collector 22-24' 26'* 36'** * If on-street parking lines both sides of the street continuously, a 28-foot pavement may be preferable.22 **Ifresidences do not front on the collector, a 24- to 26-foot pavement with shoulders is sufficient23 From a safety aspect, Greg Brown, BRW, acknowledged that a 24' -28' wide street was more I. 24 appea mg. Thc traffic speed survey ofIngerson Road conducted on August 30,1999 by the Ramsey County Shcriffs Department on behalf of Arden Hills showed that although the average vehicle speed for the 559 vehicles recorded that date was 27.79 mph, the maximum speed recorded was 44 mph. 170 vehicles, or 30.4% ofthe 559 vehicles monitored, traveled at speeds greater than 30 mph on tbat date. In other words, the City possesses concrete evidence that indicates traffic speed on Ingerson Road is at times excessive for the neighborhood. . A 1998 study conducted by the MN Local Road Rcsearch Board stated: The 'old way' of traffic planning with wide, straight streets no longer seem to be suitable for maintaining a livable neighborhood.25 The study also noted that one way to reduce traffic speed was to narrow the street.26 In addition to safety aspects, through articles and meetings, the Review Group became educated on the major effects impervious surfaces play in stormwater management and water quality considerations. One of the principal causes of stormwater pollution is impervious surfaces.27 . 21 Better Site Desi"n, supra. 22 The City of Arden Hills currently bans parking on the roadways from 2 a.m. - 6 a.m. daily, all year round. Review Group members and project residents have advised the Review Group and the Council that resident driveways provide adequate parking space and that on-street parking rarely occurs and/or is necessary. 2J Residential Streets, supra. 24 May 16, 2000 Review Group meeting. 25 Erective Traffic Calm in" Avvlications. supra. 26 Id. Also noted in Slow Down You're Goinr: to Fast, supra and The Solution to Urban Traffic and A New Vision for Nei"hborhood Livabilitv, Citizens Advocating Responsible Transportation (1993). 27 National Resources Defense Council. Inc., http:/www.mdc.org 13 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TJONS Even with the best management practices (BMP) cnforced, moderate levels of impervious surfaees bloek the natural infiltration of stormwater into the grOlmd and increase the amount of pollutants eolleeted and accumulated which are eventually transported to aquatie systems.28 . Many communities require that residential streets be 36 feet wide or more, even when they serve developments that produce small volumes oftraffic. These wide streets result from blanket application of high volume and high speed highway design eriteria, as well as a perceived need to supply both on-street parking and unobstrueted access for fire trueks. However, residential streets are often unneeessarily wide and the exeessive widths contribute to making them the largest single eomponent of impervious cover in a subdivision. Narrowing residential street widths can help reduce the amount of impervious cover ereated by excessive street widths requirements.29 Minimizing imperviousness, which is prevention focused, is more cost-effeetive than treating stormwater runoff and much more eost-effective than restoring waterbodies after they have been polluted or damaged.3o According to Kate Drewry, Rice Creek Watershed District, District Administrator, the wider the street the more impervious surface, which in turn creates more runoff and decrease of natural infiltration. During her presentation to the Review Group, Ms. Drewry showed that the percentage of runoff water increased dramatically and the percentage of infiltration decreased dramatically when there was a higher percentage of paved surfaces.31 According to Derek . Knapp, P.E., Montgomery Watson, consulting engineering for the Rice Creek Watershed 28 Landscave Practices. The Rouf!e River Proiect, https:/ /www.Waynecounty.com/rougcriver/ getinvol/tipland.html, National Resources Defense Council. Inc., http:/www.nrdc.org and The Imvortance oflmverviousness. Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. I, No.3, Fall 1994. 29 Better Site Desif!n, supra. 30 Better Site Desif!n: A Handbook for Chanf!inf! Develovment Rules in Your Communitv. August, 1998 and Consensus A~reement On Model Develovment Princivles to Protect Our Streams. Lakes and Wetlands. April, 1998, Center for Watershed Protection J] April 4, 2000 Review Group Meeting, Slide: Typical changes in runoff flows resulting from . paved surfaces. 14 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS . District, from a water quality standpoint, the roadway options are as follows: . Worst: (32' wide, full storm sewer, curb/gutter, regional ponds) Increased volume, increased rate, increased water quality treatment requirements, full ponding necessary, most costly. . Better: (28' wide, fuJl storm sewer, curb/gutter, regional ponds) Maintained volume, increased rate, increased water quality treatment requirements, full ponding necessary, slightly less costly. . Best: (26' wide, needed stormsewer, surmountable curb, rain gardens) Maintained volume, decreased rate, drastically reduced water quality treatment requirements, elimination of regional ponds, significant cost savings32 From a water quality standpoint, the Rice Creek Watershed District would like to see Arden Hills maintain the existing street widths within the Ingerson Project and thereby reduce the amount of impervious surface that contributes to stormwater runoff/pollution.33 The Review Group learned that neither the surrounding City of Golden Valley nor Maplewood increase street width during their PMP projects. Maplewood's streets are primarily 28' wide with some streets as low as 20' wide.34 . One of the arguments to increasing the street width within the Ingerson Project was to "standardize" the widths of all Arden Hills streets. In view oftbe fact that rigid standards as to street width have not been used in the past, the Review Group found this argument unconvincing. Although some streets such as Stowe Ave. were reconstructed at 32', other Arden HiJls streets have been reconstructed at 24' (Pascal Ave.), 28' (Oak Ave.) and 30' (Dunlap and portions of Tiller Ave.). Therefore, even if any of the streets within the Ingerson Project were increased from 28' to 32', as proposed in the BRW feasibility report, the streets within Arden Hills still would not be "standardized." One Review Group member recommended that Hamline Ave. be rebuilt to MSA standards. MSA representatives have advised that it is common for cities to request variances in street widths for MSA designated roadways and that such variances are often granted. Greg Brown acknowledges the accuracy ofthis statement. There have not been any significant changes within the Ingerson neighborhood (e.g. increase of traffic, additional roadways added to the neighborhood, additional homes added to the neighborhood, etc.) since the neighborhood streets were built in the 1950s. County and City snowplows have navigated the roadways successfully for over 40 years. To the Review Group's knowledge, thcre have not been any traffic or pedestrian accidents within the ncighborhood that could be contributed to the dcsign of the current street width. However, there have been resident complaints regarding the speed some motorist travel on the streets within the Ingerson Project. e 32 April 4, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 33 Id. 34 City of Golden Valley web site and May 2,2000 Review Group Meeting. 15 August 17. 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATiONS Residents do not want to see excessive speed on the Ingerson neighborhood streets and this can only be accomplished through proper street design (e.g. not excessive street width).35 Some of neighborhood residents advised the Council at the January 10,2000 Council meeting that for numerous reasons, they were opposed to the widening of any streets within the Ingerson Project. Greg Brown, BRW, has acknowledged that he would be agreeable to maintaining the existing street widths.36 e For a variety of reasons, the majority of Review Group members believe the widening of the streets within the Ingerson Project is unnecessary and recommend that existing street widths be maintained. STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT Provisions for stormwater management were contained and discussed in the initial BRW feasibility report and included: . Digging up of all streets within the Ingerson neighborhood and installing storm sewer plpmg; . Curbs and gutters on all streets; . Closure of Hamline Ave. north ofIngerson Road and installation of water holding ponds; and . Rework of the stream that flows into Lake Josephine. . The Ingerson Proj ect residents were advised that one of the primary reasons for the inclusion of a storm sewer was to eliminate "flooding" water that occurred on portions ofIngerson Road.37 A number of facts and issues wcre discussed at the various Review Group meetings: . The area that accumulates standing water spans only approximately 300' out of the total Ingerson Project; . The sloping of the existing roadway contributes to the ponding of water; . The ponding of water dissipates after a few hours or days; . Ponding water only occurs after major rain fall or spring snow melt; . Ponding water occurs on the edge of the roadway but seldom occurs on the roadway, and if on the roadway, only for short periods of time; and . Ponding water occurs in the residents' front and back yards, which would not be corrected by any roadway improvement. 35 Residential Streets, supra. 36 May 16,2000 Review Group Meeting. 37 It should be noted that photographs of the area in question showing standing water were taken after the 1998 spring snow melt. In March, 1998, there was a total precipitation accumulation at the Minneapolis Airport of 4.56" compared to 0.32" in March, 1994; 2.11" in March, 1995; 1.39" in March, 1996; 1.18" in March, 1997; and 1.86" in March, 1999. The average March precipitation accumulation for March 1994-1999 is 1.9". Local Climatological Data, NOAA, . National Climatic Data Center, 1994-1999. 16 August 17, 2000 fNGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS . The American Society of Civil Engineers, National Association of Home Builders and The Urban Land Institute acknowledge that Even during a minor storm, some ponding of water at low points in the grade is inevitable and, in some cases, may even be desirable when the expense of constructing an additional inlet is a factor. 38 The residents of the Ingerson neighborhood acknowledge that it is prudent to attempt to eliminate ponding water and instigate storm water management policies. However, factors such as cost, effectiveness, efficiency, needs, etc. must be incorporated into such decisions. It is the belief of some of the Review Group members that the original feasibility proposal for stormwater management are not cost effective or efficient and do not meet the needs of either the City or the Ingerson Project community. The Review Group recommends that the City review and evaluate alternative methods of stormwater protection such as the incorporation of rain gardens, catch basins, vortex basins, centrifugal basins,39 concrete edge bands vs. curbs and gutters, etc. within the project Through her slide presentation, Ms. Drewry showed that: . Stormwater is a major contributor to water pollution in urban areas. Although each storm sewer inlet contributes only a small number of pollutants, when added together, pollution concentrations often exceed the limits established for industries and wastewater treatment plants. If the pollutants entering each of these inlets can be reduced, so will the pollution in area waters40 Through articles and discussions, the Review Group has learned that ground water infiltration methods are effective BMPs. Numerous articles support this contention: The principal reason why infiltration is often a preferred method is that runoff is cooled as it flows though the ground, thereby reducing the detrimental them1al effects that runoff has on aquatic ecosystems.41 A primary goal of sustainable design in building and site development should be, wherever possible, to retain water where it falls, treating the water as a resource, not discharging it as a waste product. 42 . 38 Residential Streets, supra. 39 Since these types of drains are to ensure better water quality, Greg Brown felt that the City could look to outside resources for funds or grants or the City's water quality fund. 40 April 4, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 41 Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc, http:/www.nrdc.org. 42 The Ecolof!V and Culture of Water, James M. Patchett, ASLA and Gerould S. Wilhelm, Pd.D. (Revised June 4, 1997). 17 August 17. 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS Principles for Bctter Site Design [include] [w]here density, topography, soils, and slope pemlit, vegetated open channels should be used in the street right-of-way to convey and treat storm water runoff. 43 . Plants absorb nutrients and metals to a certain extent and facilitate microbal breakdown, but most of the pollutant removal from these practices occurs when the presence of the plants physically blocks the stomlwater flow, slowing the flow and allowing contaminants to settle out.44 [I]nfiltration practices also recreate, to a greater or lesser extent, the natural pattern of water infiltration into the ground that existed before increased imperviousness covered the land. When designed and installed correctly and maintained regularly, infiltration practices are among the most effective structural BMPs... .Studies have shovm that infiltration of the [sic] can get 98 percent of stormwater into the earth, cool stormwater to 550F, remove up to 83 percent of nitrogen, and remove up to 98 percent ofcopper.45 Alternative Methods/Rain Gardens Review Group Recommendations: All Review Group members recommend that feasible cost effective and efficient alternative methods such as rain gardens be reviewed and analyzed for the Ingerson Project as a . possible means of avoiding the installation of a storm sewer piping system. Through discussions with Rice Creek Watersbed District and Ken Haider, Maplewood, the Review Group has learned that there are alternative methods to managing stormwater other than the standard installation of a storm sewer system. The majority of the Review Group's discussions centered on an alternative method known as rain gardens which utilize vegetation to clean storm water at the location where the water falls. Rain gardens consist of a vegetation garden that is placed in the City's right-of-way on residents' lots. In simplistic terms, rain/water that falls on homes, lots, and streets, migrates to the rain garden where it filters into the ground. "[Rain gardens] would enhance watershed ecological quality, by slowing down storm water to infiltrate in sandy soil or be detained on heavier soils, rather than sending storm water laden with sediment and urban pollutants directly through d'. lak Id,,46 gutters an pIpes mto area es or wet an s. 43 Better Site Desirm: A Handbook for Chanf!infr Develovment Rules in Your Communitv. August, 1998 and Consensus Ar;reement On Model Deve!ovment Princivles to Protect Our Streams. Lakes and Wetlands. April, 1998, Center for Watershed Protection. 44 Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc" http:/www.mdc.org. 43 Id. 46 Bringinr; Garden Amenities into Your Neifrhborhood: Infrastructure for Ecolofrica! Oualitv. A . Guidebook for Cities and Citizens, Joan Iverson Nassauer, Brady Halverson and Steve Ross (June 1997). 18 August 17, 2000 . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS Rain gardens are not only aesthetically pleasing but "they manage storm water inexpensively and build urban ecological health.',47,48 Utilization of rain gardens is not only beneficial from a stormwater management and water quality perspective but from a cost effective and efficient standpoint as well as an aesthetic standpoint. Rain gardens have been installed and utilized in a number of locations in the United States and a number oflocations within the Twin Cities. In the Twin Cities, the "leader" in utilizing rain gardens is the City of Maple wood. Maplewood's first rain garden project was constmcted in 1996/1997. The year after constmction, the Twin Cities experienced a 100 year rainfall. Even with the incredible amount of rain that fell, there was only a little puddle of water in the area and there was not any standing water on the roadway.49 Since constmction of its first rain garden project, Maplewood has completed its second rain garden project and started it third rain garden project in the summer 01'2000. Maplewood has found that street improvement projects that incorporate rain gardens tend to cost only 65-75% of the cost of "conventional" street improvement projects. The Rice Creek Watershed District is a proponent of the utilization of rain gardens for stormwater management and water quality. Derek Knapp, P.E., Montgomery Watson, Consulting Engineering Finn for the Rice Creek Watershed District, believes that the Ingerson neighborhood is amenable to alternative methods such as rain gardens.5o Greg Brown has presented preliminary plans/drawings identifYing the areas within the Ingerson Project where he believes rain gardens could be utilized. Rain gardens are installed in the City's existing right-of-way land and, therefore, there is no need to redefine easement rights. Although it is desirable to have as many rain gardens as possible to foster better water infiltration, it is not necessary to install rain gardens on every residential lot. 51 Derek Knapp believes that a rain garden in the front of every 3'd home equates to two (2) National Urban Runoff Program ponds.52 According to Greg Brown, an issue that he feels needs to be addressed is the location and depth of any utility line/pipe. Greg Brown believes that certain portions of the utility lines/pipes may need to be insulated or relocated ifrain gardens are installed. It should be noted that because these utility lines/pipes are currently believed to be near the existing roadway, it would probably 47Id. 48 Decrease in traffic speed may be another benefit of rain gardens. The MN Local Road Research Board determined that "landscape plantings are thought to cause the average driver to pay closer attention to his or her sllTfoundings. If drivers have more to focus on, they will tend to slow down." Effective Traffic Calmine. supra. 49 May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting. so April 4, 2000 Review Group Meeting. S! May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 52 April 4, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 19 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA nONS be necessary to insulate and/or remove and relocate all portions if the roadway width was increased from its current width. . Although Greg Brown does not bclieve the east end of Ingerson Road (hill) is conducive to rain gardens53, he does believe that catch basins, vortex drains or centrifugal chambers could be installed at the bottom of the hill (by Felllwood Ave. and Pelllwood Ct.). These devices would capture runoff water and reduce the amount of runoff water flowing to the rain gardens located at the west end/flat portion ofIngerson Road. Both Rice Creek Watershed District and Greg Brown acknowledge and agree that the incorporation of rain gardens would greatly reduce the need and/or size of any water holding pond. The Review Group believes that the rain garden concept could not only meet the needs of the City's PMP but also help ensure improved water quality. Because rain gardens may satisfY the dual objectives of effective water drainage and improvement of the area's water quality, a majority of Review Group members feel the Council, City and engineering firm should work in conjunction with a qualified independent landscape architect who is familiar with and has experience in alternative stormwater management methods and the Rice Creek Watershed District to detennil1e the feasibility of such concepts within the Ingerson neighborhood. Acceptance of Rain Gardens by Ingerson Project Residents . In July 2000 a survey was conducted to determine ifIngerson Project residents accepted both the concept of rain gardens and placement of rain gardens in their residential lots. The survey was limited to residents that resided in areas that Greg Brown believes would be conducive to rain gardens: Carlton Ave. and the lower portion ofIngerson Road. The residents were asked to indicate yes or no to the following: I(we) am (are) interested in having a Rain Garden in the street right-of-way part of our property as an alternative to having the street modified to include storm sewers, curbs and gutters. 53 The majority of Review Group members recommend that the City consider consulting with individuals such as Derek Knapp, consultant for The Rice Creek Watershed District and/or Fred Rozumalski, consultant for the rain garden projects in Maplewood, Como and other areas, who . have the expertise to determine ifrain gardens are feasible and appropriate within the area. 20 August 17, 2000 . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TJONS Survey questioilllaires were given to 30 residents. The survey results are as follows: 20 Yes I No 2 Maybe* l!. No response and/or residents not at home 31 Total *2 residents were in favor ofTain gardens but did not want them installed in their yard because they felt they could not maintain the rain gardens due to their age. One of these 2 also did not want her existing hedges removed. The survey results indicate that the majority of polled residents are in favor of the concept ofTain gardens in lieu of a storm sewer system and would be agreeable to installation of rain gardens in the City right-of-way on their property. Financial Resources for Alternative Methods A number of recognized local organizations believe that alternative methods such as rain gardens are viable and should be incorporated into a city's PMP. The following organizations provide financial resources/grants to cities for the construction of alternative stormwater management methods: Minnesota Department of Natural Resource Environmental Partnership Grant Program and/or Conservation Partners Grant Program Sharon Pfeifer, Metro Region Grants Coordinator 651/772-7900 Rice Creek Watershed District Kate Drewry, District Administrator 651/766-4191 Ramsey Soil and Water Conservation District Tom Peterson, District Manager 651/488-1476 Mctropolitan Council MetroEnvironment Partnership Grant Program Gary Oberts, Senior Environmental Planner 651/602-1079 21 August 17. 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS Curbs and Gutters . Review Group Recommendations: All Review Group members recommend tbat the Ingerson Project not include tbe installation of 6", or more, concrete curbs and gutters. The majority ofneigbborbood residents tbat responded to tbe Dec. 1999 neigbborbood survey indicatcd tbat they are opposed to tbe installation of any curb and gutter system. From a water quality standpoint, installation of curbs and gutters may be detrimental. To maintain tbe integrity oftbe roadway witbout increasing tbe road widtb flat concrete edge bands could be installed. Surmountable curbs could or sbould be installed in areas tbat require control of water drainage. Although there are some benefits to curbs and gutters, there are also disadvantages to such structures: The lack of a curb eliminates a major trap of airborne pollutants. In addition, runoff can infiltrate into the soil during small and moderate storm events. Performance monitoring, however, has shown that drainage channels only realize these benefits under ideal conditions... .[D]ust, pollen, leaves, grass clippings, and organic matter can be trapped by the curb, where they remain lmtil they are washed into the stonndrain system. 54 . Both the City of Golden Valle/5 and Maplewood56 acknowledge that some individuals do not want curbs or gutters in the neighborhood and, if the majority of the residents do not want curbs and gutters, the City does not propose or install curb and gutters in the roadway projects. For water quality purposes, the Rice Creek Watershed District would prefer that curbs and gutters not be installed.57 According to information presented to and discussed by the Review Group, it is not necessary to install curbs and gutters in areas that are utilizing rain gardens.58 Arguments for the installation of curbs and gutters have included adding stability to the street and/or facilitating snowplowing. Greg Brown has advised that, if necessary, the roadway can be stabilized by the installation ofan approximately 16"-18" concrete edge band along the side of the roadway. The roads within the Ingerson Project have been snowplowed by both County and City personnel for over 40 years without any detrimental effect. Ken Haider, Maplewood, 54 Site PlanniniZ for Urban Stream Protection, The Center for Watershed Protection and US EPA (December, 1995). 55 City of Golden Valley web site. 56 May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 57 April 4, 2000 Review Group Meeting. . " See also Residential Streets, supra. 22 August 17, 2000 e . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TJONS advises that his personnel have not encountered any snowplowing problems/issues where curbs and gutters have not been installed.59 Some Review Group members believe the incorporation and cost of installing curbs and gutters for snowplowing purposes is neither cost effective nor efficient and these arguments for curbs and gutters are without merit. The majority of residents within the Ingerson neighborhood have expressed their view that they do not want curbs and gutters installed in their neighborhood.60 The Review Group recommends that ifthe majority of residents do not want curbs and gutters that the City follow the examples of both the City of Golden Valley and Maplewood and not install curbs and gutters. If, however, the Council does not accept the recommendations ofthe Review Group and determines that curbs and gutters are to be installed, some Review Group members recommend that sunnountable curbs like those constructed on Oak Ave. be installed and, if installed, a dye to dull the color be mixed into the concrete. They feel that at the maximum, only 4" curbs should be installed in areas that require control of water drainage. Water Holding Ponds Review Group Recommendations: Four (4) members of the Review Group believe that by incorporating alternative methods to address stormwater runoff, the holding ponds in the area between Hamline Ave. aud Suelling Ave. are unnecessary. Three (3) members of the Review Group believe that the project should incorporate the installation of a holding pond in this area. Before any final decision about holding ponds is made, the City and Engineering staff should obtain additional information regarding the area, including whether it currently meets the needs from a water quality standpoint and information regarding the anticipated water quantity for this area. The initial BRW feasibility plans called for the construction of two (2) large water holding ponds in the area between Hamline Ave. and Snelling Ave. According to BRW, the sole purpose of these holding ponds would be to infiltrate water before entering Lake Johanna, which is located in another Arden Hills area. Some residents of the Ingerson neighborhood believe the construction of such ponds in this location is unnecessary, would create children safety issues and would be destructive to the aesthetic view of the neighborhood as it would disrupt and change the current contour of the land. In addition, any removal of existing trees and vegetation to create these holding ponds would substantially decrease the current natural noise and visible barrier it provides and thus decrease the market value of the area. A pond created by the City of Eagan proved to be extremely damaging after the July 8, 2000 rainfall. The use of rain gardens for stonnwater management would reduce the need for installation of holding ponds in the Ingerson neighborhood since a rain garden in front of every 3 homes "May 4, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 60 January 10, 2000 Council meeting. 23 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TIONS . equates to double the size of a regional pond.61 Ms. Drewry stated that if water is given the opportunity to infiltrate (e.g. through rain gardens) there is no need to build ponds. Ms. Drewry further advised that the best National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) ponds remove only 60% of the phosphorous, a major pollutant, from water. Elimination ofthe holding ponds would also reduce overall construction costs and future City maintenance and clean-up expenditures. The initial BRW feasibility report failed to take into account the fact that a large portion of the land situated between HamJine Ave. and Snelling Ave. is privately owned. Before any installation of ponds eould take place a land survey would be necessary to determine the boundaries ofthe privately owned land. Although topographical maps indicate that runoff water from the Ingerson and Tiller neighborhood flows into this area, the BRW report failed to identify the current amount of water and the anticipated amount of water that will flow into this area. Some Review Group members and Ingerson Project residents have been monitoring this area as well as the Lakc Josephine stream both before and after rainfall including substantial rain fall. This area and its streams in their current structure do collect water, However, neither the area nor the streams have ever overflowed and it appears that the current structure, with some clean- up modifications and/or weirs, is sufficient for its purposes. Assuming this information to be accurate, some Review Group members and Ingerson Projeet residents believe that if a holding pond is built in this area, the pond will sit at a low or empty level the majority of time. If this occurs, the pond has not met its purpose and it would be unsightly and an unnecessary costly expenditure to the City and thus the residents of Arden Hills. . Holding ponds are not just bodies of water that do not require regular expensive maintenance at the cost of the City. If sediment that is collected by holding ponds is not removed on a regular basis, thc holding ponds are no longer effective. In addition to regularly scheduled maintenance and clean-up, the ponds must be cleaned after significant rainfall so that the sediment collected does not flow through if another significant rainfall occurs shortly thereafter. It should be noted that the Rice Creek Watershed District is budgeting $75,000 annually for sediment removal from holding ponds. It was recommended by some Review Group members that if any type of holding ponds are considered, they should be located on the west side of Snelling Ave. which would not be as aesthetically disruptive to a neighborhood yet serve the same purpose as a pond constructed on the east side of Snelling Ave. Greg Brown advised the Review Group that his PMP proposals for future projects may utilize the area on the west side of Snelling Ave. for holding ponds for that area. Natural, but overgrown, streams currently run within the area between Hamline Ave. and Snelling Ave. and flow westward under Snelling Ave. and natural wetlands are located between Ingerson Road and Tiller. If rain gardens are incorporated within the Ingerson Project, the need . 6l May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 24 August 17, 2000 . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS and/or size of the holding ponds are decreased substantially, if not eliminated. Instead of installing holding ponds, the existing natural streams could be cleaned,62 the natural area should be revegetated for maximum water control improvement and weirs could be incorporated The City should work closely with the Rice Creek Watershed District, the Arden Hills water quality committee and an environmental landscape architect or engineer on the development and design of any water quality metllOds for this area. Any work done to this area should maintain the existing natural setting and should be landscaped so it continues to provide the natural setting desired by the residents. Closure of Hamline Review GrouD Recommendations: The Review Group is split on whether Hamline Ave. should be permanently closed. If, however, Hamline Ave. north ofIngerson Road is not reeonstructed and is closed, all Review Group members reeommend the area be landscaped appropriately to maintain the natural setting of the area. A concern the Review Group has about the closure of Hamline Ave. is the detrimental effect it may have on the traffic speed in this area. Based upon current knowledge of the traffie speed iu this area (fast speed around the Hamline/lngerson interseetion), Review Group members believe traffic speed may increase in this intersection if the stop signs are removed and/or if the area is designed without taking into aeeount area traffic speed. By landscaping appropriately, residents will utilize this area for recreational benefit. It is the recommendation of the Review Group that this area not only be landscaped appropriately but that design considerations be given in regards to the potential effect on traffie speed and residents' safety. Those Review Group members that favor permanent closure cite the significant cost of reconstruction due to the poor soil conditions at the site. Traffic eonsiderations were the factors for those Review Group members that believe Hamline Ave. should remain open. (One Review Group member was not present for the discussion.) The initial BRW feasibility report proposed to permanently close Hamline Ave. north of Ingerson Road. The major argument for the closure of Ham line Ave. is due to the significant cost that would be incurred by the City to improve the roadway. City staff advises that Hamline Ave. north ofIngerson was improperly constructed. For the most part, homes do not abut this portion of Hamline Ave. so any repairs would need to be absorbed by the City. The original BRW feasibility report also indicated that this portion of Hamline Ave. needed to be closed in order to constructed the recommended holding ponds. If holding ponds are eliminated 62 At the 7/6/00 Review Group meeting, Dwayne Stafford advised that one of the natural streams running from the wetlands has been plugged by debris. 25 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TlONS or their size rcduced, a significant reason for closing this portion of Hamline Ave. would be eliminated. e From June 13 to July 4, 2000, vehicle traffic counts were taken on Hamline Ave. south of Ingerson Road, Ingerson Road and Dunlap Ave. Barricades were installed on June 23, 2000 north of the Ingerson Road/Harnline intersection that prevented traffic flow on Hamline Ave. north ofIngerson Road and the vehicle traffic count continued.63 The meters were only operating part ofthe day on June 13 and July 4,2000, so thosc numbers were discounted in our calculations. June 23 was a h'ansition day with the barricades up for less than the complete day, so those numbers were also eliminated from the calculations. Since July I through July 3 were days just prior to the July 4 holiday, we discounted those numbers as well. Then we arbitrarily discarded the numbers for June 21 and June 22 so that we ended up with data for seven sequential days with the street open and seven sequential days with the street closed. The subsequent distilled metering results are as follows: June 14 - 20, 2000 June 24 - June 30, 2000 In erson Road 2755/7 = 393,6 4330/7 = 618.6 Dunla Ave. 694/7 = 99.1 2071/7 = 295.9 Hamline Ave. 4532/7 = 647.4 4391/7 = 627.3 These vehicle metering results indicate that the number of vehicles traveling on Ingerson Road increased by an average of 57% after the barricades were placed on Hamline Ave. The results also indicate that the number of vehicles traveling on Dunlap Ave. increased by an average of 198% after the barricades were placed on Hamline Ave. At the same time, traffic counts taken on Ham line Ave., which counted virtually all vehicles that approached or left the intersection where the closure actually occurred, decreased slightly. In other words, ifHamline Ave. north of Ingerson Road is closed to traffic, traffic will increase substantially on Ingerson Road and especially on Dunlap Ave. where traffic counts nearly tripled. Increased traffic may also equate to increased traffic speeds on the roads in question. . The Review Group aeknowledges that according to Dwayne Stafford, only 4 Ingerson Project residents called the City to complain about the Hamline Ave. closure. The Review Group is concerned that the Ingerson Project residents may not have realized that they needed to contaet the City and voice any concerns about the Hamline Ave. closure. Another concern of some Review Group members is the residents on Dunlap Ave. whcre traffic more than tripled. Nonc ofthe residents on Dunlap Ave. received a notice explaining why the roadway was temporarily closed nor information on who to contact if they had concerns. Before any decision is made about the closure of Hamline Ave., the Review Group recommends that the Council poll the affected residents, both the Ingerson Project residents and the Dunlap Ave. residents, to "In addition to vehicle count, the meters also read vehicle speed. However, because of the placement of the meter readers (e.g, right in front ofa stop sign where one would obviously decrease their vehicle speed), the Review Groups feels that any results from the vehicle speed e meters should be discounted and void. Greg Brown concurs. 26 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS e determine if they are or are not in favor of the closure. If Hamline Ave. north ofIngerson Road is closed, the Review Group recommends that not only the design/landscaping be appropriate for thc area but also that considerable safety design consideration be given (e.g. installation of stop sign on HamIine Ave. at the Ingerson Road intersection). STREET STRUCTURE Review Group Reeommendations: Tbe original BRW feasibility report suggested tbat all roadways witbin tbe Ingerson Projeet be reeonstructed down to tbe subbase. The Review Group members recognize and aeknowledge tbat tbe City must maintain tbe life of a roadway. The majority of Review Group members recommend that the current subbase strueture of eaeh roadway be reviewed individuallv. taking into account the roadway usage, to determine if it is necessary to reeonstruct the subbase for that particular road. If a subbase does not need to be reeonstrueted, the road should merely undergo a 2"- 6" cold recyeIe overlay, provided that tbe end product is a road witb a eonsistent life expectaney throughout, which is commensurate with reconstructed roads of the same type. . There was considerable debate during the Review Group meetings over the existing street subbase. Greg Brown contends that the roads in questions should be dug up approximately 2- 2.5'and that the subbase should be replaced. This is obviously a costly endeavor to both the City and thc residents. Some Review Group members believe that, based upon the appearance of the roads in the area, a complete reconstruction of all roads in the neighborhood is not warranted. The roads in the Ingerson Project area were constructed in the 1950s. Some or all ofthe subject roads have undergone 1-2 pavement overlays. The majority ofroads within the project do not show any evidence of deterioration such as cracking, crumbling, etc., which would be signs of a poor subbase.64 Fernwood Ct. was constructed in 1961, was overlaid in 1989 and was sealcoated in 1996. If the roadways are not deteriorating, it would seem reasonable to assume that the current subbase is adequate and sufficient for the neighborhood needs. According to Greg Brown, an overlay would not "seal"/correct any underlying roadway cracks. However, both Dwaync Stafford and Greg Brown acknowledge that even a newly installed road will eventually show cracks and deterioration. Some Review Group members believe that the cost of reconstruction is exorbitant to both the residents and the City. Greg Brown advised that the cost of a full reconstruction of the roadway would cost approximately $180-$200 per foot vs. $65-$85 per foot for the cost of a 4" cold . 64 There are areas on the roadway that do appcar to have "sunk" or cracked. However, these areas were dug up by the City and/or utility workers for repair of utilities. Poor repavcment/patching is the cause of any deterioration in these areas. 27 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS recycle with Bituminous curb.65,66 It is obvious from a cost standpoint that the cold recycle approaeh would provide an enormous cost savings to both the City and the residents.67 . The Review Group acknowledges that some roadways within the project (e.g. Ingerson Ct., Cannon) may need to undergo full reconstruction due to their present condition. However, not all streets within the project may be in need of full reconstruction. Greg Brown advises that "dual" improvements (some roadways undergo full reconstruction and some roads only undergo cold rceycle replacement) are possible.68 The Review Group suggests that this approach be used for the Ingerson Project provided, however, that the end product is a road with a consistent life expectancy throughout, which is commensurate with reconstructed roads ofthe same type. LAKE JOSEPHINE Review Group Reeommendations: The original BRW feasibility report proposed to reconstruct the stream that runs into Lake Josephine by Fcrnwood Court and Ingerson Road. A resident and/or the Lake Josephine Association (comprised of residents along Fernwood Court and Ingerson Road) privately own this land. The Review Group acknowledges that water quality standards must be addressed. By incorporating alternative methods for stormwater runoff in the Ingerson Project, the City can significantly deerease the amount of water flowage into the Lake Josephine stream off Ingerson Road. Before any design proposal is undertaken for this area, the City and Council should obtain further information ahout whether or not the area/stream currently meets the needs of the City and water quality standards and the water quantity anticipated. The Review Group aeknowledges that the Couneil has received recommendations submitted by the Lake Josephine Association. . This land provides not only recreational value but also homeowner market value to the owners. For these reasons, as well as the reasons cited below, the Ingerson Project residents as well as the Review Group members are opposed to the taking of any of this land. If, however, any changes are made to this private property (e.g. inerease stream width by approximately 6"), the City should provide tangible and/or monetary consideration to the owners of any land impaeted by the change. The original BRW feasibility report included reconstruction of the stream that runs into Lake Josephine near the intersection ofPernwood Court and Ingerson Road. The BRW feasibility report failed to take into account that the land that the stream flows through is privately owned by a resident and/or the Lake Josephine Association, failed to identify the current amount of 65 Greg Brown's estimates are based upon a 32' roadway. 66 Cold recycle can be done in increments of 2", 4", 6", etc. 67 It needs to be noted and acknowledged that BRW's project monetary compensation is based upon the total project costs. Obviously, ifthe roadways are not reconstructed, the project costs _ decrease significantly. .., 68 July 6, 2000 meeting. 28 August 17, 2000 . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TJONS water that flows into the stream, failed to identify the anticipated amount of water that will flow into this stream and failed to identify accurate elevation information. The Review Group recognizes that "clean water and healthy equatic [sic] environments have signifieant value to the cOTIllnunity and economy."69 However, the subject property not only provides its owners with private access to Lake Josephine and aesthetic value but considerable market value to the homes. When selling homes within the neighborhood, it is not unusual for the homeowner to include lake land ownership as a market consideration and value. Nor is it unusual for a buyer to recognize the market value of such land. Loss of any portion of this land would not only reduce the property's recreational value but could also decrease the market value of their homes. As stated above, some Review Group members and Ingerson Project residents have been monitoring this area both before and after rainfall, including substantial rainfalls. Rarely is water seen flowing through the strcam into Lake Josephine. When the water level of Lake Josephine rises, lake water flows into the stream. The Lake Josephine waters nurture wetlands in the area, which provide habitat for various fish and animals. No analysis has been conducted to determine if any BRW design proposed would have a detrimental effeet to the wetlands and/or its inhabitants. If rain gardens and/or proper drain basins are incorporated into the project, the amount of water runoff into the stream is decreased significantly if not eliminated, It is the recommendation of the Review Group that the Couneil, City and engineering firm work with the private homeowner and the Lake Josephine Association members in designing methods that would provide water quality benefits to Lake Josephine and the surrounding area without reducing the current recreational and market value of ownership ofthis property. If the stream and surrounding area needs to be modified, such methods might include just the deepening of the stream, installation of a weir, etc. whieh would not have a major detrimental effect on the property but yet provide water quality management of water entering Lake Josephine. NEIGHBORHOOD/RESIDENT INVOLVEMENT Review Group Recommendations: Although the Review Group was not charged to make recommendations about future PMP projeets, the Review Group does reeommend that the process be modified to allow residents an earlier opportunity to have input into each project. Specifieally, the Review Group suggests the following proeess: 1. City staff prepare and publish a map of anticipated projeets scheduled over the next five years; 69 National Resource Defense Council. supra. 29 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA nONS . 2. City staff present conceptual designs to tbe affected residents of a projeet one (1) year in advance of tbe final feasibility report; 3. City staff provide a proeess and adeqnate time for residents' input by balding meetings with affected residents to explain details oftbe proposed project design once preliminary survey and design work bas been completed; and 4. City staff consider residents' eomments on the proposed design in developing tbe final feasibility report to the Conncil, Lessons have been learned by the Review Group and hopefully the Council, City staff and engineering firm that would be applicable in future pavement management projects. The major complaints from the residents have been lack of information, insufficient time in which to respond to the Council's proposed project, and lack ofresident involvement in the proposed proj eet. The Review Group obtained an explanation of the process used in Maplewood during one of its meetings. Ken Haider, Maplewood, stated that it was Maplewood's objective to involve its residents in all the projects. Haider and/or his staff meet 1-2 times with the residents in the spring to discuss the residents' pavement/street needs. It is not until after these meetings that a feasibility report is drafted in the fall for Council's review. Haider advises that at times, planned projects were discontinued in the spring, before any feasibility report was prepared, when it was determined that projects would or could not meet the needs of the residents and/or were not readily accepted by the residents.7o . Prom the design of its web site, one can tell that the City of Golden Valley strives to continuously keep its residents informed of its pavement improvement projects, One page of their web site describes their pavement policy program and other web site pages are dedicated to . 71 current pro] ects. Once the City of Arden Hills develops its web site, information regarding current and future projects should be posted for easy access by all concerned. CONCLUSION One of the recommendations of the Review Group to the Council, staff and engineering firm is that the needs, wants and values of the residents be considered in the final recommendations for the Ingerson Project. There were and are certain values the residents took into consideration when they chose to move into the area and they want these values to continue and not be destroyed. We believe the recommcndations incorporated within this report provide sound, economical and feasible alternatives to the City's PMP for the Ingerson Project. 70 May 2, 2000 Review Group Meeting. 7L City of Golden Valley web site. . 30 August 17, 2000 . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIE W GROUP RECOMMENDA TIONS The Review Group wishes to express its gratitude to the Council for allowing the formation of such a group and recognizing the benefits ofproject input from residents. The Review Group also wishes to acknowledge the commitment ofthc Council, staff, Greg Brown and the Review Group members. If the Council dcsires additional information, input and/or involvement from the Review Group, they should contact Linda Swanson, Chairperson. 31 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TlONS . APPENDIX A - BACKGROUND In 1999, at the request of the Arden Hill's City Council, BRW, the City's outside engineering consulting firm, developed a PMP neighborhood priority plan.72 The Ingerson neighborhood was slated as the first neighborhood that fell under the City's PMP. On November 30, 1999, the City of Arden Hills, through its consultant Greg Brown, BRW Engineering, presented a feasibility study to the residents that reside on Ingerson Road, Ingerson Court, Fernwood Road, Fernwood Court, Hamline Avenue, Carlton Drive, Canon Avenue, and Tiller Lane (collectively referred to as the Ingerson Project area). The feasibility report included, but was not limited to, the following designs: . Widening of streets from their existing widths (24' -28') to 32'; . Possible removal of trees, shrubs and other plant life to accommodate a 32' road; . Curb and gutters along all roads; . InstaJlation of storm sewer piping; . Reconstnrction ofthe ditch that flows into Lake Josephine (whieh flows through land privately owned by a resident and by the Lake Josephine Association); . Closure of Hamline Avenue north ofTngerson Road; and . Installation of two (2) holding ponds in the land situated between Hamline and Snelling Avenue. e On January 10,2000, the City of Arden Hills held a public hearing to discuss the Ingerson Project. At the January 10, 2000 public meeting, numerous residents of the Ingerson Project area vigorously and voeally advised the Council that they were opposed to the BR W feasibility plans as designed. (See January 10,2000 meeting minutes for summaries ofresident comments.) At the February 14,2000 Council meeting, the Council decided to temporarily table the Ingerson Project as designed and formed a Review Group to review the Ingerson Project and make recommendations to the Couneil. The Review Group consisted of the following individuals: Linda Swanson, Resident and Chairperson* Steve Baker, Member of the Arden Hills' Planning Committee' Greg Brown, BRW engineer Teresa Cain, Resident representative' Dave Grant, Arden Hills Council Member Dick Hanson, Resident' Gregg Larson, Arden Hills Council Member Terry Nygaard, Member of the Arden Hills' Operations and Finance Committee' Christine Peterson, Resident' Yvonne Wilken, Resident' *V oting Member . 72 "Commercial" roadways were not incorporated into this plan. 32 August 17, 2000 e . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS The Review Group resident members were composed of residents from various locations within the project: Ingerson Road (east end/top ofhiII [Swanson] and west end/lower portion [Wilken]); Hamline Ave. (Hanson and Cain, Executive Director of Little Brothers Friends of the Elderly, property owner on Hamline) and Carlton Drive (Peterson). The charge ofthe Review Group was: To evaluate and make recommendations regarding the scope of a road improvement project for the Ingerson neighborhood. February 14, 2000 Council Minutes. The Review Group met twice a month (every 1'1 and 3rd Tuesday) from March 21, 2000 through August I, 2000. After the first Review Group meeting, a notice was mailed by the City to the Ingerson Project residents advising them of the formation of the Review Group; the identity of the Review Group members; the dates, times and location of the meetings and a tentative agenda for the following two (2) Review Group meetings. It was neither the intent nor the purpose of the Review Group to determine specific projeet specifications. Rather, the Review Group attempted to assimilate and review information that would be pertinent to the Ingerson Project. Although all Review Group meetings were open to the public, questions/comments raised by the public were not addressed during the meetings. Rather, questions/comments could be raised and discussed by partieipants after the meetings and/or could be addressed by individual Review Group members at any time. Through written and verbal communications, the Ingerson Project residents were encouraged to contact the Review Group members if they had any questions and/or information relevant to the Ingerson Project. The majority of the meetings consisted of discussions and/or comments by Greg Brown that pertained to the original design and and/or alternative designs. Additional meeting speakers included: Kate Drewry, District Administrator Rice Creek Watershed District; Derek Knapp, P.E., Montgomery Watson, Engineering Consulting Firm for the Rice Creek Watershed District; Ken Haider, Public Works Director, Maplewood; and Terry Nygaard/Terry Post, Arden Hills representatives, re: Assessment information. In addition to discussion meetings and speakers, the Review Group reviewed various printed materials. The final recommendations of the Review Group were formulated by the voting members of the Review Group. 33 August 17, 2000 INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA nONS The Ingerson Project is the first of many projects scheduled under Arden Hills' PMP. It is the hope ofthe Review Group that some of the recommendations put forth to the Council for the Ingerson Project may also be applicable for future roadway projects within Arden Hills. 34 August 17, 2000 . . . . INGERSON PROJECT REVIEW GROUP RECOMMENDA TfONS APPENDIX B - REFERENCED ARTICLES Asvhalt Rebellion. The. Alan Ehrenhalt, Executive Editor of Governing Magazine, http://www.islandnet.comlITE _ BCINov97 _ Asphalt.htrnl Better Site Desirm: A Handbook for Chanf!inf{ Develovment Rules in Your Communitv. August, 1998 and Consensus Af!reement On Model Develovment Princivles to Protect Our Streams. Lakes and Wetlands. April, 1998, Center for Watershed Protection Brinf!inf! Garden Amenities into Your Neif!hborhood: Infrastructure for Ecolof!ical Oualitv, A Guidebook for Cities and Citizens, Joan Iverson Nassauer, Brady Halverson and Steve Ross (June 1997) Bulletin, The, March 22, 2000 City of Golden Valley PMP, http://www.ci.golden-valley.nm.us/streets/pmp.htrn Ecolof!1J and Culture of Water, The, James M. Patchett, ASLA and Gerould S. Wilhelm, Pd.D. (Revised June 4, 1997) Effective Traffic Calminf! Applications and Implementation. MN Local Road Research Board (October 1998) . Flood Insurance, STAR, July 29, 2000 Imvortance of Imverviousness. The, Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. I, No.3 - Fall 1994 Landscaoe Practices, The Rouf!e River Proiect, http://www.Waynecounty.comlrougeriver/getinvoVtipland.html Local Climatolof!ical Data, NOAA, National Climatic Data Center, 1994-1999 Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc., http:/www.nrdc.org Residential Streets, Second Edition, 1990, American Society ofCivjl engineers, National Association of Home Builders, The Urban land Institute Site Planninf! for Urban Stream Protection, The Center for Watershed Protection and US EP A (December, 1995) Slow Down You're Goinf! Too Fast! The Communitv Guide to Traffic Calminf!. Public Technology, Inc, (1998) . Solution to Urban Traffic and A New Vision for Neif!hborhood Livabilitv. The, Citizens Advocating Responsible Transportation (1993) 35 August 17, 2000 e CITY OF ARDEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: August 17, 2000 SUBJECT: Joe Lynch, City Administrator Dwayne Stafford, Public Works Director YS, County Road E Streetlight Poles TO: FROM: . Backl!round On Friday July 7, 2000, during a brief thunderstorm, one of the seventeen City owned streetlights on County Road E blew over. A visual inspection revealed the tubular pole was rusted through where it attaches to a mounting flange. The lightpoles were manufactured by Stemer Lighting Systems of Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Their factory representative also examined the broken lightpole and provided the attached letter, which basically states the poles were installed ineorrectly, causing extensive rusting at their bases. He indicates the lightpoles have reached the end of their safe useful life and should be replaced. Replacement Costs The cost for seventeen poles ofthe same type (square tapered), [unllshed with two three- foot by four-foot banner arms would be $1625 each or $27,625 total. The east for seventeen round tapered poles (stronger with less wind resistance), with banner brackets would be $1745 each or a total of $29,665. The cost for seventeen round tapered aluminum poles (strongest and more resistant to salt), with banner brackets would be $2295 each or a total of$39,015. An outlet for Christmas lighting etc., at fifteen feet is an additional $85 per pole. These costs are for poles only. New light fixtures can cost from $500 to $750 each and installation will cost approximately $750 per pole, including concrete bases. Other Considerations Each year the City receives more requests for street lighting. The Operations & Finance Committee has reviewed several requests, but tabled them for now and has agreed to look at the whole streetlight issue at some future time. Recommendations The Public Works Director recommends the City Council ask the Operations & Finance Committee to review various streetlight pole and fixture designs, and then make a recommendation to the City for a design that can be used uniformly all over the City. . The Director further recommends Council authorize staff to budget for and replace the County Road E streetlights in 2001 with a design accepted by the City Council. Project: City of Arden Hills. Attention: DeWayoe Stafford- Director of Public Works . Reference: Replascement Poles for County Road E, Arden Hills. Based onjobsite visit by myself and George Webster From Sterner Lighting, the following was determined, and our reconnnendations are : I. Existing Square Tapered Steel Poles have been installed on this site for over twenty years. The road salt and chemicals have deteriorated these poles to an end of life sitnation. Also the anchorage on some of the poles is actnally below grade. Because of the installation as is, the moisture on the inside of the pole causes rusting from inside the pole. 2. The following is our recommendation: Option t. Replace with the Square Tapered Steel product you now have, but redo all anchorage with above grade pad mounting, so as to create a breathing cavity for moisture to get out of the poles. Option 2. Replace with a Round Tapered Steel. This pole is less expensive and has a better durability. Also must be pad mounted anchorage. Option 3. Replace with a ROlmd Tapered Aluminum pole. Best option for long term. Aluminum is so much more durable to the salt and chemicals and will last twice as long. Prices will be as follows: t.RTS ~ least expensive. 2.STS~ mid-priced. 3. RTA ~ most expensive. We can also do inserts on these poles for banner arms. Existing is now a wrap-around clamp type bracket for the banners. , . Painting processes have improved through the years and Sterner uses a powdercoat process, that is the most durable in the industry _ This is a long lasting process and is easy to maintain. Cut sheets on the different poles and anchor pads are available and will be submitted for approval after receipt of order. Please feel free to contact me if you further comments Of questions. Sincerely, Ron LaHaie Luma Sales Rep. 1-952-995-6508 Direct Line 1-952-995-6565 Fax .