03/05/2019 - City Council Public Works CommitteeAGENDA
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2019
7:15 PM
(After Council Meeting)
CITY HALL
FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
I.ADOPT AGENDA
II.WATER METER PROGRAM - SURCHARGE APPEALS
III.TOWN CENTRE DRIVE CROSSWALK
IV.NO PARKING SIGNS – TEMPORARY BAGGING POLICY
V.OTHER BUSINESS
VI.ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Memo
March 5, 2019 Public Works Committee Meeting
II. Water Meter Replacement/Repair Program
Surcharge Appeals
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Provide direction to City staff regarding the final disposition of
the Water Meter Replacement/Repair (R/R) Program (City Code 3.05) surcharge for the identified
property in accordance with the related City Ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
• On May 15, 2012, the City Council adopted an amendment to City Ordinance 3.05 regarding
the Rules and Regulations relating to Municipal Utilities that requires all properties connected
to the municipal water utility to permit the city's designated utility employee onto the
property and within the structure for purposes of the inspection, repair or replacement of
the water meter. This action, in essence, implemented the Water Meter Replacement/Repair
(R/R) Program to ensure accurate water use measurement and payment.
• Part of the amendment, and accordingly the Water Meter R/R Program, incorporated a fee
schedule that provided for a surcharge to be placed against utility billing accounts for those
properties that either didn't schedule an inspection or did not bring the identified deficiency
into compliance within the prescribed time frame.
• The Surcharge Fee is $150 per month for Single Family properties and $500 per month for all
others.
• In anticipation of appeals, the Council directed the Public Works Committee to review any
appeals and provide their recommendations back to the Council under the Consent Agenda.
Staff has recently heard from the following property owners who want to appeal a related
surcharge.
• The following surcharge appeal is being presented to the Public Works Committee for the
purpose of the corresponding recommendation for future Council action. The property has
been found to be in compliance with City Code regarding the Water Meter R/R Program. As
a result of the individual review, the related surcharge appeal should be recommended to be
supported (waive surcharge) or denied.
o Stacy and Chad Hennis, 1631 Hickory Lane: Water Meter Program – Remove $150
surcharge (utility account)
Agenda Memo
March 5, 2019 Public Works Committee Meeting
III.TOWN CENTRE DRIVE
CROSSWALK
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive update on proposed pedestrian crosswalk
relocation on Town Centre Drive at the intersection of Promenade Avenue.
BACKGROUND:
•At the October 16, 2018 City Council Listening Session, a resident addressed the Council
with a request to install an all-way stop sign at the intersection of Promenade Avenue
and Town Centre Drive. The Council and staff discussed the request, reviewed traffic
data for the intersection and determined it would not be appropriate to have an all-way
stop sign installed at this location based upon engineering criteria. It was the consensus
of the Council to have staff review whether the City’s crosswalk policy would warrant a
crosswalk at this location and bring the results back to the Public Works Committee for
a recommendation on a future City Council agenda.
•Further dialogue between staff and the requestor lead to the widening of the
investigation area and the recognition of an existing crosswalk about 200 feet east of the
intersection. The existing crosswalk is an extension of a trail from O’Leary Park.
•City staff’s expanded analysis incorporated the value of the park for pedestrian traffic
generation, along with the multi-family residential properties on the south side of Town
Centre Drive, and the mixed-use development on the north side. The additional
pedestrian “traffic generation” value confirmed a crosswalk would be warranted in the
area.
•While the analysis justified the warrant for a pedestrian crossing of Town Centre Drive,
it did not justify two crossings.
•With sidewalks located on both sides of Town Centre Drive, a crosswalk at any location
would provide adequate pedestrian access to any of the properties/amenities on either
side. That said, the location of a crosswalk at the intersection with Promenade Avenue
appears to be most appropriate.
•To satisfactorily address the requestors’ initial request, as well as provide the best
location for a single crosswalk of Town Center Drive, the existing crosswalk would need
to be removed in order to construct the new crosswalk.
•Public Works staff will present details and address any questions the Committee may
have on this item.
ATTACHMENTS (2):
•Engineering Analysis
•Location Map
Memo
To: To Who It May Concern
From: Charles Fredericks
Date: 03/04/2019
Subject: Town Centre Dr & Promenade Ave – Crosswalk Evaluation
Town Centre Dr at Promenade Ave is an uncontrolled leg of that intersection.
For a crosswalk at an uncontrolled leg of an intersection – or mid-block crossing – there are
eight criteria to be met for the installation of a crosswalk to be justified by the City of Eagan’s
Crosswalk Policy (1996):
1.Functional Classification – Marked crosswalks should be limited to neighborhood
collectors, community collectors or minor arterials.
a.Proposed location does not meet this criteria, as Town Centre Drive is classified
as a local street in the City of Eagan Transportation Plan (2008, rev. 2009).
2.Trail/Sidewalk Connectivity – Crosswalks should provide connectivity between off-
street trails or paths. If there are none, crosswalks should be discouraged.
a.Proposed location meets this criteria.
3.Crosswalk Spacing – In general, there should be a minimum of 660 feet between
crosswalks if one or both are not located at a controlled intersection.
a.Proposed location does not meet this criteria, as there is a crosswalk
approximately 450’ east.
4.Sight Distance – Crosswalks should be located in areas where there is good sight
distance to the sidewalk or path area for approaching traffic.
a.Proposed location meets this criteria. Sight distance would be adequate and
parking is currently restricted in that area.
5.Pedestrian/Vehicle Conflicts – Crosswalks should be located in areas that will not
cause significant traffic operational problems (queuing problems, right-turn on red, etc.).
a.Proposed location meets this criteria.
6.Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) – Crosswalks should only be installed where
there are ramps meeting the current ADA requirements.
a.Proposed location currently does not meet this criteria. ADA approved ramp
would need to be installed on south side of Town Centre Dr.
Page 2
7.Pedestrian Volume – If the crossing is located at an uncontrolled intersection, the
crossing should meet the minimum pedestrian volume criteria.
a.Proposed location meets** this criteria based on ‘Generator’ and ‘Destination’
factors and not actual pedestrian counts.
**Actual pedestrian volumes observed did not meet the volume threshold.
8.Traffic Gap – If the crossing is located at a mid-block or uncontrolled crossing location,
the traffic gap criteria must be met. See Crosswalk Policy II-C.2 for additional detail.
a.Proposed location does not meet this criteria because there was not a sufficient
pedestrian volume based on observations.
Notes & Recommendations:
In order to make this location for a crosswalk justified, the crosswalk to the east would need to
be removed and an ADA approved ramp and landing would need to be installed. Installation of
the ADA ramp would involve 25’ of sidewalk replacement to meet grade requirements on ramp
and landing slopes. The ramp on the north side of the proposed location would also need
alteration.
The PAR (pedestrian access route) for the proposed location is impacted by the gutter because
the landing is north of Town Centre on Promenade. Additionally, the existing ramp on the
northwest corner is the least desirable design and does not allow easy accessibility.
Estimated costs to install the proposed crosswalk:
Concrete Work – $14,555
Pavement Markings – $1,500
Topsoil – $600
Bituminous – $800
Sign R&R (labor) – $460________________
Estimated Total: $17,915 - $19,700
More detailed estimated quantities can be found here.
Installing
Removing
Agenda Memo
March 5, 2019 Public Works Committee Meeting
IV.PARKING RESTRICTION
SIGN BAGGING POLICY
DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Review and comment on current practices with regards to
temporary lifting of established parking restrictions and provide direction to City staff on any
related ordinance revision proposals for future City Council consideration.
BACKGROUND:
•City Code Section 9.02 addresses general parking prohibitions. The following restriction
is included in the code, “It is unlawful for any person to stop, stand or park a vehicle
except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the
specific directions of a police officer or traffic control device in any of the following places:
at any place where official signs prohibit or restrict stopping, parking or both.”
•The City’s Fee Schedule provides a “Parking Restriction Sign Bagging Fee” of $50.00 that
addresses City staff covering or bagging signs prohibiting or restricting parking on public
streets, therefore, temporarily removing the parking prohibition or restriction.
•Staff believe the current City Code language and Fee Schedule do not provide adequate
legal basis to temporarily lift established parking restrictions.
•Public Works staff will present options for consideration and address any questions the
Committee may have on this item.