|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, June 26, 2007, at
6:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
1.
Introductions/Roll Call
Commission
members present: Randy Neprash, Joel Fischer, Jan Vanderwall, Ernie Willenbring , and Jim DeBenedet
Commission
members absent: None
Staff
present: Duane Schwartz, Public Works Director; Deb Bloom, City Engineer
Others
present:
2. Public
Comments
None
3. 6:30-7:30 - Tour of Rice Street Corridor
4. Approval of May 22, 2007, Meeting
Minutes
Chair
DeBenedet noted that on Page 3, Item 6, second paragraph, fourth line, he
wanted “issues concerning them” changed to “issues concerning the PWETC.”
Also, he wanted the recommendations listed at the top of Page 4 to be
expanded upon rather than listed as they were spoken at the meeting. Member
Vanderwall suggested including with the minutes a design scheme showing the
area with their recommendations. Chair DeBenedet said in this case this
information has already gone to council but going forward that could be done
Member
Neprash moved to approve the minutes of the May 22, 2007, meeting of the
Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission. Member Fischer
seconded.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Abstained: 1
Motion
carried
Member
Neprash asked about information on the emissions survey that was requested at
the May meeting. Mr. Schwartz said he and Chair DeBenedet had talked about
it, and it was not added to this agenda but will be in the future.
Member
Neprash asked about a new schedule for the Northwestern College review. Mr.
Schwartz said it is included in this packet under the Northwestern item.
5. Communication Items
Mr.
Schwartz said the City received word from Transit for Livable Communities,
and Roseville did not get the grant for trail and bike path improvements.
6. Northwestern College EAW Review and
Comment
Deb Bloom updated the Commission on the current status of this project.
Member
Fischer said he thought TKDA did a great job working with the City and MPCA
and all the requirements, but he thought they could have done a better job on
the cumulative impacts. They only focused on the college area and not the
surrounding area. Ms. Bloom said the City did make sure they included the Twin Lakes area in the study. Member Fischer said they could have hit it a little harder.
Ms. Bloom said since they only have control over what’s on their site, should
there even be a cumulative impact, plus how far out do you go? Member
Fischer agreed that was a question for the City Attorney.
Member
Neprash proposed that with Northwestern College expanding and purchasing more
property, which moves those properties off the tax roles, that part of the
negotiation for this planned unit development would be for the City to ask
for a yearly payment in lieu of taxes for the current properties and any
future properties. He suggested the commission recommend this to the City
Council.
Member
DeBenedet said he understood asking for the college to contribute funds for
some things, such as traffic signals. He said why not do an area assessment
of cost. Ms. Bloom said it’s not allowed by State Statute, but she could ask
the City Attorney about it.
Member
Willenbring asked if they would be setting any precedent for other PUD’s if
they recommended this. Member Neprash said he didn’t know but any city
action did that to some extent.
Member
Vanderwall said he didn’t like the sound of asking for money to make up
missing taxes but preferred referring to it as paying for additional city
services. Member Neprash said that’s the context he had in mind with this
suggestion.
Member
Fischer said his opinion was that the City Council should vote for a negative
declaration on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). He said in his
experience it is very rare that one is requested.
Member
Neprash said he didn’t think the statement in the report “work toward
ensuring all direct untreated discharges are eliminated” was strong enough.
Ms. Bloom said they could get rid of “work toward” and say “will identify and
treat.”
Member
Neprash said he found it interesting how the EAW came about. A Roseville resident had requested one be done during public comments, and the college just
agreed to do one without being formally asked by the City. He suggested that
an informal request for an EAW be added as a regular part of the development
process. Member Vanderwall suggested that would cause certain people to
focus on that part of the process, and it would become a nuisance issue. Ms.
Bloom said if it was requested from everyone wouldn’t the purpose be watered
down. Member Neprash said then would staff be willing to look at the
appropriate trigger for each applicant and make the request. Then if the
applicant refused, the City could make a formal request. Mr. Schwartz said
in this case most of the work for the EAW was already completed so it was
fairly easy for Northwestern College to complete it.
Member
Neprash moved to forward these recommendations to the City Council: Identify
and eliminate all illegal direct untreated discharges, amend the traffic
study to include Twin Lakes, and clarify the cumulative impacts. Member
Vanderwall seconded.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion
carried
Member
Neprash requested a draft of the recommendations be sent to the Commission
for review before being forwarded to the City Council.
Member
Neprash said he didn’t think a recommendation on a negative declaration was
appropriate for this Commission to make since residents wanting to request an
EIW would take it to the City Council and not the PWETC. Member Vanderwall
said he thought it would be irresponsible of the Commission not to make a
recommendation on an issue because somebody might have an opinion they didn’t
hear.
Member
Fischer said the question to ask yourself is if this plan has the potential
for significant environmental effect.
Chair
DeBenedet said it was clear to him that the City Council has asked for comments
and recommendations from the PWETC, and that’s what they should do.
Member
Fischer moved to recommend that Council issue a negative declaration. Member
Vanderwall seconded.
Ayes: 4
Nayes: 1
Motion
carried
7. Pathway
Master Plan Additional Information
Member
Vanderwall moved that this topic be discussed at the July meeting. Member
Willenbring seconded.
Ayes: 5
Nayes: 0
Motion
carried
8.
Welcome to Roseville Signs
Discussion
Duane Schwartz briefed the Commission on the history of this topic and posed certain questions:
What criteria to use in deciding which groups get their logo on the sign;
should the Roseville Visitor’s Association be involved (they’ve been
discussing placing banners on streetlights in certain streetscape areas);
where and how many signs should be placed; what type of sign should be used.
Mr.
Schwartz said staff would be prepared to discuss this further at the next
meeting. The Roseville Visitor’s Association could also be invited for their
input.
Member
Willenbring asked if the banners the Roseville Visitor’s Association was
proposing would deteriorate. Mr. Schwartz said they would, and that should
be part of the maintenance discussion. Member Willenbring said he would like
signs similar to the current parks signs to make things more consistent, but
different enough to be distinctive.
Member
Vanderwall suggested choosing each sign for the specific street on which it
will be placed, depending on how much and what kind of traffic, what part of
the City it’s in, etc.
Chair
DeBenedet asked for the Commissioner’s questions for staff on this issue.
They included:
§
How much will maintenance cost, and who pays for it?
§
Where can the signs be located?
§
Are easements necessary?
§
What are the criteria for groups to be added to the signs?
(Chair DeBenedet thought this should be asked of the City Attorney)
§
Check with other cities to see what they do, including any
problems with vandalism.
§
Check with sign companies for brochures or other information on
these types of signs
§
Park signs – check on pricing and availability of others to
match
§
Traffic counts of proposed streets
Member
Vanderwall said the high school graphic design classes could make
professional-looking signs if that was the way they wanted to go.
9.
Agenda for Next Meeting – July
24, 2007
Pathway
Master Plan Discussion
Cool
Cities Emissions Survey
Grant
for Vacuum Street Sweeper
Storm
Water Utility Rates
Storm
Water Issue Information to Residents
10. Adjournment
|