|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, July 24, 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, Jan Vanderwall, Ernie Willenbring, and Jim
DeBenedet
Commission
members absent: Joel Fischer
Staff
present: Duane Schwartz, Public Works Director; Deb Bloom, City Engineer
Others
present: Julie Larson, Executive Director, Roseville Visitor’s Association
2. Public Comments
None
3. Approval of June 26, 2007, Meeting Minutes
Chair
DeBenedet requested that the first sentence of the last paragraph on Page 2
to be changed as follows: put a period after “such as traffic signals” and delete
the rest of the sentence. And the second sentence of the last paragraph on
Page 2 to be changed as follows: add “of cost” to the end of the sentence.
Member
Willenbring moved to approve the minutes of the June 26, 2007, meeting of the
Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission. Member Neprash
seconded.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Abstained: 0
Motion
carried
4. Communication
Items
Mr.
Schwartz spoke on the Fairview/Oakcrest Avenue Intersection Evaluation by SRF
Consulting Group that was provided in the packet.
Member
Vanderwall asked if visibility issues are in the scope of this study. Mr.
Schwartz said he had asked SRF that question, and they said it visibility
wasn’t a concern.
Member
Neprash questioned the report’s information on meeting warrants (thresholds
to be met before installing a signal)—he thought the report stated warrants
would be met with only a slight increase in traffic. Deb Bloom disagreed
with that interpretation and said the study included the Twin Lakes
Development, as well as other information, so the data is on track.
Member
Neprash questioned whether residents in the James Addition had ever talked
about or requested a traffic signal at Fairview & Oakcrest. Mr. Schwartz
said that it had come up many times over the many years the James Addition
access has been discussed. Ms. Bloom said this study was done because
residents in the James Addition asked for it.
Mr.
Schwartz presented a door hanger staff had developed to advertise the
pesticide/fertilizer ordinance.
Member
Vanderwall thought “storm water runoff” should be better defined so residents
have a more personal view of where the water comes from.
Item
out of order
7. “Welcome
to Roseville” Signs Discussion
Mr.
Schwartz introduced Julie Larson, Executive Director of the Roseville
Visitor’s Association. Ms. Larson spoke on “Welcome to Roseville” banners
the association would like to use on light posts throughout the city. Ms.
Bloom said that Xcel Energy has already stated they do not want banners on
their poles. However, there are some city-owned streetlights on Larpenteur,
County Road B2 and County Road C that could be used.
Mr.
Schwartz asked Ms. Larson if the Visitor’s Association would want to
participate in the welcome signs themselves. He said the association had
declined to participate when asked a couple of years ago. Ms. Larson said
her organization is non-profit whose sole purpose is to welcome visitors into
the community, and as such they can’t do anything separate from that.
Member
Neprash asked how many city-owned streetlights there were. Ms. Bloom said
about 80. Mr. Schwartz said that which lights to use for banners is a
question for the commission to discuss.
Member
Vanderwall asked what the life expectancy is of the banners and whether they
needed to be cleaned periodically. Ms. Larson said they can last for years.
Ms. Larson went on to say that she sees this as a partnership with the
City—the Visitor’s Association would purchase them and the City would hang
them up. She sees using different banners for seasonal events.
Mr.
Schwartz asked Ms. Larson what the association’s timeline was. Ms. Larson
said they didn’t really have one.
Mr.
Schwartz asked the Commission if they wanted the banners to be included with
the “Welcome to Roseville” sign item for discussion together. All agreed.
Member
Willenbring suggested having sample banners made up in full size so they
could better determine what works best.
Ms.
Larson left the meeting and the discussion continued on the “Welcome to Roseville” signs. Mr. Schwartz presented information staff had developed regarding
possible locations for the signs.
Member
Willenbring asked if it was necessary or desirable to have logos of civic
organizations on the signs. Member Vanderwall said that as a member of the
Rotary Club, he knows that his club is enthusiastic about having their logo
on the signs. He said he’s also seen signs with churches listed and that
these are important parts of the community.
Member
Neprash said having those logos on the welcome signs would indicate the
community has a vibrancy and civic-mindedness. He pointed out that in the
sign example, the Fridley sign used similar colors and the same size for all
logos, which he liked better than the White Bear Lake sign that used all the
regular logo colors and various sizes.
Member
Willenbring liked the style of the Roseville park sign example. He said if
they kept the total number of signs down, they could get more elaborate, expensive
signs.
Ms.
Bloom said there are limited locations where signs could be placed in
right-of-way without getting easements and pointed them out on a map.
Member
Willenbring thought that a great location for a sign would be northbound
Snelling at Roselawn, but there isn’t enough room.
Member
Vanderwall thought two good locations would be southbound Snelling at County
Road D and at Rice Street and Highway 36.
Chair
DeBenedet thought both ends of County Road C would be good locations and both
ends of Lexington Avenue, although at the south end there just isn’t any room
for it.
Member
Willenbring thought they could eliminate the Victoria and Larpenteur location
due to the small amount of traffic.
The
locations the Commission decided to look at closer were the north and south
ends of Snelling, the north end of Lexington, the east and west ends of
County Road C, and the east end of Highway 36.
Mr.
Schwartz said staff could check with both Ramsey County and Mn/DOT to see
what it would take to get permits for the signs.
Chair
DeBenedet questioned why the City Attorney suggested the City establish
criteria as to what constitutes a customer service group when he thought that
information should come from the City Attorney. Mr. Schwartz said he thought
what was meant was that the City needs to set criteria for what types of
groups they want advertising on the signs.
Member
Willenbring said he liked the Central Park sign and would prefer the welcome
signs to look similar, and then all the signs would be more uniform.
Chair
DeBenedet said that the Commission could make some firm decisions at the next
meeting after reviewing the new information staff is going to research and
provide.
5.
AUAR Update Draft Review and
Comment
Mr.
Schwartz went through a presentation of the Twin Lakes Area.
Member
Neprash pointed out that the City Council was planning to take action on this
report before the PWETC’s next meeting.
Chair
DeBenedet said the PWETC could still make comments after that. He wasn’t
ready to discuss the report because he hasn’t had time to go through the
entire thing.
Member
Vanderwall said that on Page 96 under strategies to reduce the amount of
traffic, he would like to see something about a park-n-ride or light rail system.
Ms. Bloom said the Northeast Diagonal is no longer on the Met Council’s 2030
program. Member Vanderwall said whether it’s a rail line or not, he would
like to see more definitive alternatives for reducing traffic.
Chair
DeBenedet said he had compared the traffic study from the Northwest College
EAU and this traffic study at Lydia and Fairview, and the results were
different. Ms. Bloom said she would check into it.
Chair
DeBenedet suggested they terminate the meeting and move the remaining topics
to the August meeting. All agreed.
6.
Cool Cities Emissions Software
Discussion
Topic
moved to the August meeting
8.
Pathway Master Plan Discussion
Topic
moved to the August meeting
9.
Agenda for Next Meeting – August
28, 2007
Cool
Cities Emissions Software Discussion
Pathway
Master Plan Discussion
AUAR
Update Draft Review
Update
on “Welcome to Roseville” Signs
Grant
for Vacuum Sweeper
Storm
Water Utility Rates
Member
Neprash requested time to talk about the Northwestern College EAW. He said
that most of the recommendations the PWETC put forward didn’t figure into the
City Council’s decision on the EAW. But the next step is the PUD, which is
where their recommendations would most likely be included. Ms. Bloom said
the final draft PUD agreement was before Council on August 13.
Chair
DeBenedet commented on the fact that members of the PWETC feel the Commission
has a role in the project development process but that has not yet been
officially granted. Mr. Schwartz said the City Manager and staff are working
on it.
Chair
DeBenedet reminded Commission members that they cannot communicate regarding
city business outside of the PWETC meetings.
10. Adjournment
|