HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-01-23 Handout @ Work Session (CSAH21) Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
2335 Highway 36 West
St. Paul MN 55113
Tel: (651) 636 -4600
Fax: (651) 636 -1311
Stantec
Janaury 23, 2013
Dallas Larson
Administrator
City of Centerville
1880 Main Street
Centerville, MN 55038 -9794
Re: CSAH 21 (Centerville Road) Reconstruction
City of Centerville
Temp. File No.: 193801639
Dear Dallas:
At the request of the City Council, we have reviewed the county's preliminary design for the reconstruction of
CSAH 21 (Centerville Road) from Main Street to the southern city limits. The following are our comments:
Main Street to Heritage Street
The county's current plan shows this area proposed as:
• Two -lane urban section roadway
• Right turn lanes /Parking lanes
• Mill and overlay
• Existing concrete curb and gutter would remain in place
This segment is part of the City's Downtown Redevelopment Area. With this in mind, the City has a few
options for this portion of the roadway:
1. Allow the overlay
a. This would make it difficult to gain
participation from the County if the road were to be reconstructed as part of a downtown
redevelopment in the next 15 years.
2. Ask County to leave this section out of the proposed improvements
a. This allows us to ask for participation from
the County.if we decide to reconstruct this segment in the next 15 years.
b. The one drawback here is that there may be
some questions from the public as to why the whole road was reconstructed and just these
two blocks were left untouched. Hopefully, a little communication can explain our reasoning.
3. Go forward with the full reconstruction at this time.
a. One version of this option would be to just
reconstruct the street between the curbs. Then, at a later date (with redevelopment), we
would remove the curb and add on parking lanes, new curb and streetscaping.
StanteC
Page 2 of 5
b. Alternatively, you could undertake the full
reconstruction with streetscaping at this time. However, that would involve property
acquisition and building demolition (on the block between Main and Sorel).
We recommend Option 2 —No Improvements. The roadway is Inadequate condition and is not in need of
immediate repair, Choosing this option leaves us the most flexibility in the future. There would be no cost to
the city for this section, if Option 2 is chosen.
Heritage Street to Meadow Lane
The county's current plan shows this area proposed as:
• Two -lane urban section roadway
• Right turn lanes
• Ditch on the west side (even though there is curb and gutter)
• Full reconstruction
• Existing concrete walk on the east side would remain in place (or be replaced in -kind)
We encourage the city to support the current design in this segment. The city may be responsible for the
cost of curb and gutter and its share of storm sewer in this area.
Meadow Lane to Center Street
The county's current plan shows this area proposed as:
• Two -lane rural section roadway
• Right turn lanes
• 4' paved shoulders where there are no turn lanes
• Full reconstruction
• No trails or sidewalks
A previous version of the county's draft plan showed this area as urban section. We would still like to have
the county explore this option for a number of reasons.
• Minimizes impacts to adjacent properties
• Allows the addition of trails /sidewalks in the future without property acquisition or re- grading.
• Provides an urban, in -city environment which promotes traffic calming
• Is more aesthetically pleasing (allows mowing)
Our examination of making this area an urban section, without ditches, shows that the road must be lowered
by about five (5) feet throughout this segment in order to eliminate the need for ditches. The county's plan
already shows this area being lowered by 1— 2 feet. Lowering the road by 5 feet causes driveways on the
west side to become fairly steep and necessitates cutting the intersection at Center Street back about 80 feet
or so. It appears that this area could be made into an urban section, without ditches. However, further,
more detailed design is necessary to make sure this is the best alternative.
We recommend asking the county to consider making this segment an urban section, Making this segment
an urban section could add costs to the city for curb and gutter and storm sewer.
Stantec
Page 3 of 5
Center Street to Hunters Trail
The county's current plan shows this area proposed as:
• Two -lane rural section roadway
• Right turn lanes
• 4' paved shoulders where there are no turn lanes
• Full reconstruction
• No trails or sidewalks
A previous version of the county's draft plan showed this area as urban section. Our examination of making
this area an urban section, without ditches, shows that the road must be lowered by about seven (7) feet
throughout this segment in order to eliminate the need for ditches. There is only one affected driveway on
the west side which may become fairly steep. The new elevation would also necessitate cutting the
intersection at Hunters Trail back about 100 feet or so.
While this area could be made into an urban section, without ditches, it is probably not cost effective to do
so. The county's plan shows only minimal grade change here, so lowering the existing grade by 7 feet would
be a drastic difference in the amount of excavation, making it prohibitively expensive.
We encourage the city to support the current design in this section. There should be no cost to the city for
this segment.
Hunters Trail to Dupre Road
The county's current plan shows this area proposed as:
• Two -lane rural section roadway
• Right turn lanes
• 4' paved shoulders where there are no turn lanes
• Reclaim- shape- and -pave type improvement
• No trails or sidewalks
A previous version of the county's draft plan showed this area as urban section. Beginning just south of
Hunters Trail, this area becomes more rural and probably lends itself to the type of design shown.
We encourage the city to support the current design in this section. There should be no cost to the city for
this segment.
StanteC
Page 4 of 5
DuRree Road to Southern City Limits
The county's current plan shows this area proposed as:
• Two -lane rural section roadway
• Right turn lanes
• 4' paved shoulders where there are no turn lanes
• Reclaim- shape- and-pave type improvement
• No trails or sidewalks
This area is yet to be developed and lends itself to a rural section roadway.
We encourage the city to support the current design in this section. There should be no cost to the city for
this segment,
Trunk Storm Sewer /Stormwater Treatment
As you are aware, the City's ultimate plan for the Downtown Redevelopment and for its Downtown
Stormwater Reclamation Project necessitates the construction of a 42 -inch pipe coming from the intersection
of Centerville Road (CSAH 21) and Sorel Street, south to a discharge point leading into the ditch along the
south side of LaMotte Park.
The County will need to construct a storm sewer system in areas of urban section roadway and may need to
provide stormwater treatment Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the project. Those BMPs could include
infiltration features, storm ponds and the like.
If the City wishes to construct the 42 -inch pipe now and enter into a joint powers agreement to share that
pipe with the County, it could likely handle both the County's storm water and the City's future runoff from
the Downtown Redevelopment. If not, a slightly larger pipe probably could. In either case, it would likely be
mutually beneficial to share the pipe and therefore realize savings by sharing the cost. Each party might pay
a percentage of the pipe's cost based on its contribution to the flow or the County could contribute the
equivalent cost of the system they would have needed on their own.
The pipe could be constructed under the county's contract, with the City's portion of the cost becoming part
of its share of the project costs.
Finally, a similar agreement could be reached to have the County share the City's Stormwater Reclamation
Facility to the extent in needs to provide treatment or infiltration.
Sidewalks and Trails
During the course of several design meetings, the logistics of certain trail segments has been discussed.
There are many factors which affect the viability of a trail. A few things to note are:
The County views trails as a City cost
If additional right -of -way is necessary because of a trail, they would view that as a City cost
• If additional wetland mitigation was necessary because of a trail, they would view that as a City cost.
There are areas of significant wetland impact between Hunter's Trail and Dupre Rd.
$tafttec
Page 5 of 5
• The reimbursement program we took advantage of on CSAH 14, only covers the material cost of the
trail and does not include any grading or other ancillary costs as mentioned above. Also, it is not
certain that a trail along Centerville Road would be considered eligible for this reimbursement.
• The City of Lino Lakes has stated that, for a variety of reasons, they do not plan on pursuing the
construction of a trail along their segment of this project (Birch St. to Centerville's southern City
Limits). This means that an extension of a trail along CSAH 21 in Centerville's portion of the project
would likely terminate with a dead end.
Weighing all of these factors, if a segment of trail is to be constructed, it should be one of high priority, with
a significant benefit to the safety and convenience of the public. The existing trail crossing between Hunter's
Trail and Dupre Road is one which the County does not wish to perpetuate. If a trail was constructed along
the east side of Centerville Road, between this crossing and the trail crossing at Meadow Lane, it may offer
an alternative to trail users wishing to cross at a safer, better marked location. However, forcing people to
use this alternative could be difficult. The council should weigh the pros and cons of the construction of this
segment. Other segments do not appear to offer enough benefit at this time, to justify the added expense.
Sincerely,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES, INC.
100 �
Mark Statz, PE
City Engineer
651 - 604 -4709
Attachments; Marked up portions of the County's Draft Plan
i
c 4-) 'U
j, 4 W� 9k N Q)41 N R,
4J ti v 3 U x r, 4.4 rd
0 0 U
C;3 o ti 3 v 4-) _Q H 0 A N
U) �� 0, OA � V 8 � H
p �.
'U 0 rtS CA
't3 Cl. N 'U U 3 3 H N W N
bi q N 4) N U of 4J 4-) U) O bi O
W 'b :j r v Q) q "" .0 4-14 'H co ro fa Ei
p '" a� 0 C�• v ti N U 0 0 r-+ b, N N ^I 4J 0
o o v U 0 41 N x t�4 V
tr4 3 cz W W •u r. 4J A •ti 4.) O v rtS N
U ,.. -4 y v) N 0 Sy o a) .1 U 0 N H W
-0 n v �, 3 v U U 3 N v U 4J N 4u
rd .0 4J 4-) O � H 0 ti -u N o x 4J O
�1 ° ° .0 4J N U 4J W rq 3 cn rt 4-J
to rl
W a�i c 4J r E� U O ro 0 ril 0) N 'U 4-) v
U
PS � E� to p N U o (1) 4-J rS O H
C/) p H O v O m 3 � 0 H •u 'U
H H 41 N RS O U ro U ti ti u Q, U G H 4= O H
x t o °� H •u cn U Q) 0 U Q, 0 k O a) � O
Q ,4 a Cl. 3 4J °' U ai °,' " ~ `� �' v acne v v 4.) 'U � ro U U 3
U 3 H N u o N k U rd v p ri ti Ul Rf O ti v W
O p -, 03 U H (D bi o 'U = o cn cn A R, 4 Q) •H CO EQ CO
w U 4 - ) rl O b, p N ti N N •u U N N
ca a� 3 'U 4J o• 1 o ti o .� O •� 4J O �, b - ti
p - v 0 m -� r I �, w U a w s1, •ri v •u b, U) r-I o 4 b1 Q, � cn
o v o o ro bi C 4. - - Q) v � 4J .3 •H Oj 93 m 'U , - rl Q) A A
s. N N U >, H N x N O c 0 0 9 A U H to N N . �
o W 0 3� r u ^" ti ti v; Ul 3\ H U O 3 m m O
a� O � 0 'U u 3 � vl 'U O O N O 'U H 3
Q) 4-) M � U H U) H ro � N 4J 4J
0, a�'i > N N 2 o N ro U U U H '� RS N~ U FC H
a" Q, N m 4 q H O O q U) 4-J ti :J 4J N •ti 'U 1 1-) iy 3 N :3 to r
k ro N N EQ rl NE� N Q, O ro � � H r H 0 N U rl m
r, Q) �� o �vv� a) � � � �v
(1) •u ri 4-) 4-) cri U 3 ro O 'U q4-J 0= h W U (f) 5-, A O r-i w�q
I
I
5. Are you aware that Centerville compiles a business directory and posts it on
the city website? The directory is also printed in hard copy and delivered to
city residents about every two years.
About half of the business owners were aware of the
directory. Most expressed that they would like to be
in the directory, if it is published.
6. Do you find you get business from the local directory? [Would you like the
city to continue updating the directory and make new updated ones available
again ?]
A small number of business owners felt that they got
business from the directory, even so, most felt that
the directory should continue.
7. In the past the city council /staff hosted a business appreciation picnic in the
summer. All the Centerville businesses where invited and everyone had a
chance to network and talk about current business conditions and what is
working for them and their business. Unfortunately attendance dwindled and
the event was discontinued. Would you attend if the city were to start doing
this again?
Many said that they would not have time to attend a
business appreciation, but a number thought it was a
good idea. Late afternoon seemed to be the preferred
time for those that expressed an opinion. Two
expressed that they would prefer that it be kept very
informal, maybe held in a park.
8. What could the city do to assist you in further growing your business?
The majority did not have any suggestions here. One
made the comment to lower the taxes and a second asked
for the traffic signal at CSAH 14 and 20 to have a
flashing yellow arrow to make left turns easier.
9. What could the city do to attract other business owners to town?
Most had no suggestions, but several mentioned that
lower taxes would help, one mentioned TIF, another
mentioned cooperation between Lino Lakes and
Centerville for future development.
10. Are you aware of other business owners who might consider locating in
Centerville?
"No" was the consistent answer here.
11. How has your business been over the past year?
a. Flat or stable
b. Growing
c. Contracting
The majority indicated that they were stable or growing,
although a few said that layoffs had been made during the
recession.
12. How would you rate the outlook for your business looking forward? (same
answer choices as previous question)
Many were quite optimistic about the future of their
business. Several expressed uncertainty.
13. In your opinion, what are the biggest challenges facing your business today?
The most common concern mentioned was the economy, two
mentioned competition.
14. What services, if any, should the city provide that will directly benefit your
business?
The answer seemed to be "none."
15. If you could change one thing about Centerville, what would it be?
"Lower taxes" was mentioned frequently.
16. When was the last time you visited city hall and/or spoke with a city
employee? Why?
Most had infrequent contact with city hall, but only
one mentioned that the experience was not pleasant.
Majority said that interaction with staff was
satisfactory or very good.
How would you rate that interaction: Excellent Good Satisfactory Not
very good Poor.
17. How would you rate the police services provided by Centennial Lakes Police
Department? Excellent Good Satisfactory Not very good Poor.
(If you get unsatisfactory ratings - follow up to find out why.)
Response regarding the police department was positive.
One made a comment that the police unnecessarily
cruise his parking lot checking license plates.
Thank you again for operating your business in Centerville and thank you for taking the
time to visit with me.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **
Other comments received:
Concern with the type of building materials required by
Centerville.
Centerville Road needs to be fixed.
Too much regulation.
Sedona would like to build an assisted living /memory care
facility.
Eagle Brook is outgrowing their office building.
ADL would like the City's truck repair business.
More festivals or weekly events to draw customers.
Would like to see a "big box store" here, although one said
a "big box" would put them out of business.
Business Spotlight at each council meeting could bring
attention to businesses.
P1
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
November 14, 2012
2. Centennial Fire District 2013 Budget Amendment &Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP)
Finance Director Jeziorski stated that due to the ability of capturing some administrative
costs through grant proceeds, the Fire District desired to amend their 2013 Budget and
Capital Improvement Plan by decreasing the previous approved 2013 Budget and CIP
from $128,000 to 123,500.
Motion by Council Member Love and seconded by Council Member Fehrenbacher
to decrease the Centennial Fire District 2013 Budget & Capital Improvement Plan
by $4,500 to $123,500. All in favor. Motion passed unanimously.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS
Mayor Wilharber Closed the Public Hearing for Delinquent Sewer, Water & Garbage
Services
1. Res. #12 -026 — Delinquent Sewer, Water & Garbage Services
As Finance Director Jeziorski stated earlier, five (5) individuals have paid since the
resolution was crafted and more are likely to make payment prior to certification.
Motion by Council Member Paar and seconded by Council Member King to adopt
Res. #12 -026 - Delinquent Sewer, Water & Garbage Services for Residents
Associated with the 3" and 4 th Quarter 2011, 0 and 2 nd Quarters of 2012 Billing
Cycles and Assessing Same to Parcel Identification Numbers Through County
Property Tax Statements Payable in 2013 as per payment modifications deem
appropriate prior to the November 30, 2012 deadline for certification through
County property taxes. All in favor. Motion carried unanimously.
2. Res. #12 -OXX — Adopting Special Assessment for Nuisance Abatement -
Tabled
3. Ticket Education Program Review
Attorney Glaser stated that the program is well received by both the Police Department
and the offenders; however, the Governing Board desires to decrease program costs
which will be captured in the new agreements that Council will receive at their next
meeting for consideration.
Mallard Way & Ditch Issues
Both Council Members Paar and Fehrenbacher stated that they had received resident
complaints regarding a recently forwarded letter from the City regarding the depositing of
brush, grass clippings and storage of items from abutting property owners' on the City's
yards
These same residents requested that the Council Members visit their rear
property. q Y
to personally view the City's property, discussed the unsatisfactory condition that the
contractor left the site in upon completion of the work, requested that going forward they
Page 4 of 6
P2
t I
City of Centerville
Council Meeting Minutes
November 14, 2012
receive City requests either by telephone or in person rather than by mail and requested
that they be allowed to improve the Outlot if the City was not going to be responsive to
their requests for cleaning it up. Council Member Fehrenbacher stated that one abutting
neighbor had installed a bridge, which the City removed due to it not meeting structural
requirements and that the owner had requested that it be returned and to date it had been.
Residents admitted that in the past they had been depositing items (brush and grass
clippings) on the property a stopped after they found out that it disturbed the drainage
ditch. Lengthy discussion was had by the Public Works Director Palzer stating that the
contractor who cleaned the ditch left the site in satisfactory condition, that neighboring
property owners placed brush and additional items onto the City's property on numerous
occasions, that other debris could have been left by the previous owner, Ground
Development and that most of the stumps viewed by property owners are located on their
own property with the City not being responsible for removing them.
Mr. Richard Gillitzer, 6873 Mallard Way, stated that he desired to clear and spruce up
what he thought was his property due to the fact that it states that he owns a portion of the
Outlot on his deed and he learned from his neighbors that he did not own it that the City
did. Mr. Gillitzer explained that he desires to clean the same size area as his neighbors.
Mr. Gillitzer also stated that he received a similar letter from the City, felt that it would
be not only in his best interest but also the City's to spruce up the area, that City Staff
was extremely rude to him when they were visiting the Outlot recently and that the letter
was very threatening.
Attorney Glaser stated that there would be slight liability on the City's part if something
happened during the resident cleanup.
Consensus of the Council was for abutting property owners to meet with City Staff
regarding future cleanup efforts and subsequent authorization for the owners to
commence cleanup.
IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS/UPDATES
Council Member Fehrenbacher reported on the recent Police Governing Board meeting
stating that staff was offered similar benefits as was offered to union employees, that
several individuals that serve on the board were up for re- election, with representatives
from the cities of Lexington and Centerville being reelected to their positions and that the
City of Lexington will be hosting the meetings for the upcoming year.
Council Members Love and Paar both thanked City Staff and election judges for their
hard work with the recent General Election. Both Council Members thanked voters for
the large turnout.
Council Member Love stated that Mr. Chad Buechler, Operating Manager for CenterMart
appeared before the Planning and Zoning Commission in November requesting a
Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a U -Haul Rental business at 1825 Main
Street and the Commission ordered a Public Hearing for December 4, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.
Page 5 of 6
P3
v • r ffe 1880 Nam Shrtt Crn , `WW 55038
1857 651- 429 -3232 or 'FaX 651 -429 -8629
October 16, 2012
i
Dear Property Owner:
I am enclosing some pictures of debris that has been dumped on city property near your
home. While we may or may not have contacted you, many of the property owners in the
area have been talked to by city staff and asked not to dump grass clippings, leaves and
brush on the adjoining ditches, ponds and city land. Unfortunately this dumping has
continued in several areas.
In the future, occurrences of dumping in this area will be referred to the police with the
expectation that a citation will be issued and the violation prosecuted. If you or any of
your neighbors see any incidences of dumping, please contact this office at 651 -429-
3232, or the Police Department at 763 - 235 -2564.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
Dallas Larson
City Administrator
0� �.
r I
aAr
m
� vak. �s.
i
r » ��
le
f '� 1
.
A
. { • ti p _. �.... �._ rZtS � ...... +. �<}
t
m "
~ v
r �+ ��e. 1 �� � � 1 �• a �L .. ��"
t
F �
:l
44,