|
Public
Works, Environment and Transportation Commission Meeting Minutes
February 27, 2007
- Introductions/Roll Call
- Commission members
present: Randy Neprash, Joel Fischer and Ernie Willenbring
- Commission members
absent: Jim DeBenedet
- Staff present:
Duane Schwartz, Public Works Director; Deb Bloom, City Engineer; Tim
Pratt, Recycling Coordinator
- Others present:
§
Eureka Recycling Representatives: Noelle Bell,
Customer Service Manager, and Alex Danovitch, Business Manager
§
Northwestern College Representatives: Brian Humphries,
Associated Vice-President for Facilities and Planning for Northwestern; Steve
Elmer, Transportation Planner, TKDA; Patrick McLarnon, Hydrologist, TKDA
- Public Comments
- Tam McGeehee, 77 Mid Oaks Lane, requested that the
commission ask Northwestern College to provide an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet as part of their review of the college’s expansion
plans. Vice-chair Willenbring asked if she could come back and speak
later when that agenda item came up.
- Approval of January 23, 2007, Meeting Minutes
- Member Neprash wanted to clarify a comment he made in
the middle of Page 6 when referring to commercial and noncommercial
applicators. The comment was related only to the applicators and would
still apply to commercial applicators on residential lots.
- Member Neprash moved to approve the minutes of January
23, 2007, of the Public Works, Environment and Transportation
Commission. Member Fischer seconded.
§
Ayes: 3
§
Nays: 0
- Communication Items
- Duane Schwartz said that Chair DeBenedet had intended
on speaking on the Rice Street Technical Advisory Committee, which has
met once. The first meeting was just introductory, and the commission
will be kept informed of the progress.
- Member Fischer was just reappointed to the commission
for another term, and the Council will be appointing a new member by
the end of March.
- There are a number of funding options supporting
transportation in the legislation right now. Mr. Schwartz said this
could be a future agenda topic if desired.
- Eureka Recycling Annual Report
- Noelle Bell, Customer Service Manager, and Alex
Danovitch, Business Manager, from Eureka Recycling presented their
company’s annual report. They keep specific recycling records for each
city with whom they work. Roseville’s information is contained in the
report. Member Neprash asked if there was a website that contained all
this information so it could be compared. Mr. Danovitch said a person
would have to go to each city’s website for individual information, but
the numbers are best used to rate your own city from year to year.
- Recycling in the city will change in 2007 to weekly
pickup.
- Member Willenbring asked how much of what they pick up
cannot be recycled. Mr. Danovitch said in 2006 it was only 1.2%. The
key to this is that drivers don’t pick up things that are
non-recyclable.
- Tim Pratt mentioned a recycling video contest that can
be accessed from the city’s webpage. People can vote on their favorite
video.
- Fertilizer/Pesticide Ordinance Recommendation
- Duane Schwartz presented information he received from
the City Attorney, namely that the local ordinance can be less
restrictive than state statute, and by definition that does include
resident application of commercial products.
- Member Neprash said there are instances when a
non-commercial applicator applies commercial applications to parks,
golf courses, athletic fields, playgrounds, or other similar
recreational property. Member Neprash would like the signage
requirement to apply to them.
- The Commission had also questioned the buffer zones
listed in the current ordinance. The City Attorney had been consulted
and said there was nothing in state law that dictates what the buffer
is so the City can determine that measurement themselves.
- Member Neprash moved to change the ordinance as
follows:
- 408.03, C.: Replace with state statute
- 408.03, E.: Change buffer zone from 10’ to 50’
- 408.04, A.: Delete "noncommercial" and
include a reference saying it does apply to noncommercial applicators
in locations listed in 408.04, B., 5.
- Change title to "Lawn Fertilizer/Pesticide
- Member Fischer seconded
§
Ayes: 3
§
Nays: 0
- Motion carried
- Mr. Schwartz said this would go to the City Attorney to
draft a proposed amendment to the ordinance. When that is received, he will
bring it back to the Commission for their approval; and then they can
send it to the City Council for them to address.
- James Addition Alternate Access
- At a previous meeting, the Commission had asked staff
to prepare a recommendation statement to be forwarded to the City
Council, which was discussed and altered.
- Vice-chair Willenbring reiterated what residents had
told them at the public hearing, namely that they didn’t want the
neighborhood changed regardless of whether Mn/DOT closed the
intersection.
- Member Neprash suggested adding that there appear to be
difficulties with signalization. He also wanted to suggest that the
Council work with Mn/DOT to try to keep the intersection open.
Vice-chair Willenbring disagreed because this issue has been discussed
for years and why drag it out longer when the end result seems to
already be determined.
- Member Fischer said he agreed with suggesting the
Council try to continue negotiations.
- Mr. Schwartz said the Council would be discussing the
Commission’s findings and then making their own decisions.
- Vice-chair Willenbring then agreed to include the
suggestion in their findings.
- Mr. Schwartz said that the Council has already had
discussions with Mn/DOT on this topic. Member Neprash said he was
unaware of that and then said he thought the suggestion should be left
out. Members Willenbring and Fischer agreed.
- Member Neprash moved to send the revised statement to
the City Council. Member Fischer seconded.
§
Ayes: 3
§
Nays: 0
- Northwestern College Master Plan PUD
- Representatives and consultants from Northwestern College presented traffic information on their redevelopment (Brian Humphries,
Associated Vice-President for Facilities and Planning for Northwestern;
Steve Elmer, Transportation Planner, TKDA; Patrick McLarnon,
Hydrologist, TKDA).
- Member Neprash asked about the student body limit of
1600 that is listed in the reports and what the history was on setting
that number. Mr. Humphries said he wasn’t familiar with that
information, but it would probably be discussed at the Planning
Commission meeting this week.
- Member Willenbring asked how much housing the school
had east of Snelling. Mr. Humphries said about 200 beds in dorms.
- Member Neprash wanted to talk about parking and asked
about the parking ramps. Mr. Humphries listed the options. Member
Neprash said by his calculations the increase in students and the
increase in parking spaces was about the same so that the problem with
spill-over parking in the neighborhood would still be the same. Mr.
Humphries said he hasn’t received any complaints from the neighborhood
this year at all.
- Greg Graske, Rice Creek Watershed, spoke regarding the
watershed’s input into this project and that they would be getting more
involved.
- Member Neprash asked about the condition of the
college’s current ditch system. Mr. McLarnon said it was in very good
shape with no erosion problems, and the college keeps them well
groomed.
- Member Neprash asked about the west side of the campus
and said there were some small, nasty cast iron pipes extending out
into the lake and wanted to know what they were discharging. Mr.
Humphries said he didn’t know but would check on it.
- Member Neprash asked about the existing roofs and how
they were drained. Mr. Humphries said they drained into an underground
pipe system. Mr. McLarnon said that in future buildings the rain
leaders would be disconnected. Mr. Humphries said he thought that a
quarter of the roof drains weren’t even functioning. Member Neprash
said it would be helpful to have this specifically addressed in the
storm water study.
- Member Willenbring asked if they were talking about the
Roseville part of the property or also the Arden Hills part. Deb Bloom
said that Rice Creek Watershed District governs the whole site, and
that was important to keep in mind.
- Member Neprash said he was curious about the process
and said it was odd to see a 90-page storm water report with no
calculations. He wondered when the calculations came forward and what
the review process was. Deb Bloom said city codes are in place; and
during the review process, those must be met. This report is just a
concept report. Member Neprash said it was confusing and unsettling to
approve a PUD that has no calculations, and then to never see it again.
Deb Bloom said city staff reviews all permits and always enforces city
code.
- Tam McGeehee, 77 Mid Oaks Lane, pointed out that in
1996 there was an agreement between Arden Hills and Roseville to make
joint decisions on this site. She also said she thought this site
requires an environmental review because of the traffic, as well as the
general storm water issues. She said that Arden Hills’ process was
better than Roseville’s because there’s more chance for residents to
see every step of the process. She said all the residents in the
neighborhood feel the college is at full capacity.
- Ms. McGeehee said she was concerned about this project
meeting PCA and other standards. Member Neprash explained to her that
when going through the whole process, permits and approvals will have
to be applied for for the project to go on, so the rules in place at
the time will have to be followed.
- Member Neprash said the report was frustratingly vague.
Deb Bloom said it was but that’s because the development was so far
away, specific information is not available but will be as the project
goes further.
- Ms. McGeehee said she talked to the EQB Board, and they
said it is acceptable for the Director of Public Works to ask for an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), which she thinks is
necessary. She said she needs more detail to determine capacity. Member
Neprash asked if the college would be willing to do an EAW. Mr.
Humphries said he hasn’t been through that before so would have to see
what is involved but would look into it. Mr. Humphries asked why this
would be triggered on the Northwestern Campus, is it a general practice
for other applications. Deb Bloom said that there are regulations in
place that could require the assessment, or if a petition of 25
signatures is obtained. She said staff could sit down with the city
attorney to see if the assessment is warranted.
- Member Neprash said he had done a back calculation on
the ratio between impervious and the total site. The City has a
standard of 25%, and his calculation was 24%. He asked that the college
do their own calculation, and if they came up as close, they should
state that in their report.
- Member Neprash brought up the green roofs in the report
that were linked with parking ramps. He asked that they adjust the
language to include green roofs on the field house or the dorm instead.
Mr. McLarnon said the green roofs have been removed from the plan since
they can meet their requirements in other ways.
- Member Neprash said in the 2003 master plan they have
an expensive budget that is very detailed, but storm water requirements
have changed since it was prepared. He wanted a larger amount set aside
to cover these new costs. Mr. Humphries said they’ve been using current
day numbers, and this is just the planning stage. Member Neprash
requested that they look closely at what the costs will be in the next
10 years.
- Member Neprash said he thought neighbors were concerned
about noise from the new dormitory. Duane Schwartz said that the
Planning Commission would be covering those issues.
- United Properties Senior Housing Proposal
- Deb Bloom presented background on this item.
- Future Agenda Topics for 2007
- Chair DeBenedet had wanted to discuss future topics.
Since he wasn’t in attendance, this topic was continued to the next
meeting.
- Agenda for Next Meeting – March 27, 2007
- Annual Phase II Storm Water Public Meeting
- United Properties Senior Housing Update
- Future Agenda Topics for 2007
- Adjournment
|