COE MINUTES 1/22/2007
PRESENT: Standridge, Pierce, Dickie, Weide, Sonzogni, Stabo OTHERS: Schumacher, Sorsa, Hausbeck PUBLIC: Michele Klappa-Sullivan
Standirdge; Call to Order at 4:45 PM
Reorder agenda; item #2 first Minutes approval: motion by Sonzogni; second by Dickie; unanimous approval
‘minor’ enviro. corridor change 100’ wide drainage corridor; Corridor easement proposed to 75’; grassed swale. Side slope grading is no steeper on shortened side than other side
Drainage way was built within the first 75 feet of 100 feet (full width not being used); Dailey has no opposition to reducing the environmental corridor; 75 feet is minimum for drainage way. Alder Rosas has agreed to sponsor this.
Michele: waiting for results from soil tests to see if site can meet infiltration requirements. Will spread out DNR NR 151 requirements (oil/grease, infiltration, etc).
Standridge: can COE recommend more bioinfiltration? (Dailey: can recommend whatever they want to CC)
Starkweather Creek impacts? Conveyance is within 75 feet, not using full 100 feet; would be adding 25 feet of impervious surface.
4-5 bio-infiltration systems on property;
Standridge: can either deny, approve, approval with recommendations;
Weide: reduce parking spaces and add grass?
Stabo: big enviro picture of parking; reduce parking stalls? How calc #?
Michele: city standard (depends on zoning)
Bill: did engineering look at add’l impervious surface?
Mike: very miniscule; also if they developed 5 years ago, they wouldn’t have had to do nothing; they now have to meet all NR 151 rules (neighbors didn’t have to)
Standridge: opportunity to create more requirements Michele: 30% greenspace; some bioretention, some turf, trees, other plantings; more than most developments
Bill: may be small, but where do we draw the line? Could recommend they increase infiltration/ compromise w/o too much trouble
Stabo: underground stalls? A lot more money
Green building requirements? Michele is civil engineer; not sure.
Approve with recommendations? (Bill)
Sonzogni: Motion to approve with recommendation: suggestion that developer attempts to compensate (with 100% of predevelopment infiltration) for loss of infiltration from increased impervious surfaces. Pierce seconded. In favor: all but Stabo.
Fries: redev has to meet 60% of predev infil; do we want them to meet 60% of 25 foot or 100%?
Daily: we do get occasional requests for reducing width
Michele not sure of soil boring results for infiltration of native soils.
In order to reduce parking spots
Item #1-Dark Sky Initiative Not sure how it relates to parking lots; just deals with streets? Stabo: Vitens golf is very bright; (grand-fathered in) Land rover dealership is under new rules Motion to refer to February by Pierce; second by dickie; unanimous approval
Item #3 – Salt Use Recommendations Report from last month; next step was to put into an ordinance for CC for action. Need to add substance to ordinance; report is fairly vague.
Larry Nelson wanted us to list exactly what we will do/not do and when. Don’t refer to report.
Al: same concern regarding specific recommendations to act on. Should also refer to other agencies (BPW, City Attorney, City Risk Manager, Report from Street superintendent, BOE, public health, water utility, bike/pedestrian committee).
Recommendations to include: 1. Temp Monitoring Station a. Al: use the current one; pavement temp is different from air temp; would get info earlier with one in the SW area
2. Anti icing demo a. include
3. Driver training a. Currently do training; suggests more training
4. Decrease salt in sand mix a. reduce from 20 to 5% b. unsure of cost impact
5. Reduce salt application per lane mile—biggest impact a. Al: concern over liability issues; pilot study is only targeting one neighborhood; could cause more issues due to inconsistency of streets b. difficult to due; each year and snowfall is different; 10-year average? c. Intent is reduction in salt use d. Weide: driver alert program prior to reducing salt; change in society?! e. Snowplow drivers told to use discretion with salt application i. can adjust application rate (drivers cannot adjust) f. More important for other communities to get involved in a salt reducation policy; NO impetus on private owners to use less salt g. modify bullet; it will have most impact (standridge); need driver alert program h. “city of madison goal is to gradually reduce salt application to 100 pounds salt per lane mile with the understanding that driver expectations need to change; in conjunction with a publicity campaign”
Pick up where we left off next month
Motion to refer to Feb by pierce, second by stabo; unanimously approved
6. Installing GPS already; remove from resolution
7. Accuracy of weather forecasting; Hausbeck: change contractors? Every time contract comes up for renewal Streets reevaluate; remove from resolution
8. On board temp sensors: leave in; supervisor trucks only
9. Lane miles conversion is done;
10. sampling program with conductance monitors (purchase more equipment; use in monitoring) provide funding for add’l equipment, staff resources; Health needs to get $$ from USGS for fiscal note and BOE; PUT ON HOLD 11. Private property owners, education
Copy of what we’ve decided so far, continue discussion next time.
Most of populace of Dane County expects clean streets. Success at voluntary changes unlikely unless DNR regulates. Need to go to MAMSWaP first, but DNR didn’t want to take this on not that long ago.
Rep Reports
C: Solid Waste- automated garbage collection coming in Sept 07; 65 or 95 gal carts. Expect to contain everything
Waste reduction; George Dreckman is collecting idea on reducing waste in city. On website.
D. Coal Tar: county has produced a draft ordinance for coal tar elimination; Bannerman is on that subcommittee
E. Air Quality Subcommittee: members attended sustainable energy committee, discuss similar issues, parking, development. Looking at green building with LEED standards;
Staff: None
Future Items: can email me/Jon with agenda items
Motion to adjourn at 6:15 by Bill; Second by Bruce