|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, May 22, 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, Ernie Willenbring, and Jim
DeBenedet
Commission
members absent: Jan Vanderwall
Staff
present: Deb Bloom, City Engineer
Others
present: Natalie Tungsvik, Roseville High School Earth Group;
Alex
Hall, United Properties
2. Public
Comments
None
3.
Approval of April 24, 2007,
Meeting Minutes
Member
Neprash moved to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2007, meeting of the
Public Works, Environment and Transportation Commission. Member Fischer
seconded.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion
carried
4. Communication Items
Duane Schwartz updated the Commission on the proposals being sought for an Inflow/Infiltration
Study for the City. The Council has approved Bonestroo to do the study.
Mr.
Schwartz updated the Commission on the Ramsey County Rice Street TAC
meetings. Chair DeBenedet brought up the proposed width of Rice Street and how that might affect businesses with parking lots close to the road. He
suggested the Commission take a van tour of the area in June, July or August.
Member Neprash said narrow boulevard areas are a real problem for snow
removal on pathways.
Information
was provided to the Commission on electronics recycling.
Mr.
Schwartz said the newest version of the Fertilizer/Pesticide Ordinance had
been passed by the City Council.
Deb Bloom presented information on a recent meeting sponsored by the Sierra Club “Bicycling in
the Burbs.” Member Neprash asked if the bicyclists thought they have a clear
line of communication with the City. Ms. Bloom said she thought so. Member
Neprash asked that when the bicyclists have some recommendations they be
presented at a PWETC meeting.
Mr.
Schwartz mentioned that the City’s grant request from Transit for Livable
Communities scored third highest so we have a fair shot at receiving funding.
5.
High School Environmental
Group “Cool Cities Campaign”
Natalie
Tungsvik, Roseville High School Student, explained what her group was about
and how appreciative they were of the receptive attitude of the city officials
they’ve met with so far. Their group is supporting the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement, which Roseville’s mayor has signed. She said the next
steps are to get an emissions survey and create an action plan. Her group
would like to continue working with the city to come up with a plan.
Member
Fischer asked if she knew of companies in the state that perform emissions
surveys. Ms. Tungsvik said she didn’t know at this time.
Mr.
Schwartz said the mayor has signed the U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection
Agreement and that the full City Council endorsed it. The Council has also
directed city staff, commissions, and the Housing & Redevelopment
Authority to consider initiatives and make recommendations on activities that
the City of Roseville could undertake to help meet full city standards.
Chair
DeBenedet said there should be a link on the City’s website to the Climate
Action Handbook that had been provided to them and that using more efficient
motors and pumps would help reduce greenhouse gases and may reduce costs.
Mr.
Schwartz said there are many areas to look at, including transit and
pathways, and that these topics should be kept in mind for future agendas.
Member
Neprash said he was intrigued with doing an emissions survey and would like
to know who’s capable of doing them, what’s involved and how much it would
cost.
Chair
DeBenedet asked staff to check into who performs these surveys and what the
cost would be. Mr. Schwartz said another thing to look at is the
accompanying software to the Climate Action Handbook that can be purchased
for $600.
6.
United Properties
Applewood II Proposal
Alex
Hall of United Properties presented information on the senior co-op building
for active seniors that they are proposing at 3010 Cleveland Avenue.
Chair
DeBenedet asked what the PWETC’s role was in the development review process.
Mr. Schwartz said they didn’t have an official role at this point, but the
process was under review. Chair DeBenedet said he wanted the Commission to
look at the issues concerning the PWETC and adopt a motion with
recommendations.
Chair
DeBenedet asked if the proposed road would ever become a through street. Ms.
Bloom responded that the studies she’s seen have shown that a signal would be
necessary at County Road C2, and when Twin Lakes is fully developed, there
will be a connecting street through that area with a signal onto Cleveland.
Member
Neprash suggested the Parks Department increase the size of the parking lot
enough so that no one needed to park in the roadway.
Member
Neprash asked if this project would fall under the requirement for 25%
impervious area. Ms. Bloom said that requirement is only in shore land
areas, and this isn’t shore land.
Member
Neprash asked if the storm water ponds were sufficient in size for the area
and were they deep enough to treat the water sufficiently. Ms. Bloom said
the City has a performance standard the developer will have to meet. Alex
Hall said the final plans have not been completed, but storm water will be
channeled to storm water ponds on either side of the development, plus rain
gardens and other things will be added.
Chair
DeBenedet asked where the wetland area would be mitigated. Mr. Hall said
that hasn’t been finalized yet but pointed out a possible location. Ms.
Bloom said that Rice Creek Watershed District would make the final decision
on that.
Chair
DeBenedet asked for a formal motion of their recommendations. Ms. Bloom read
Commission members suggestions from her notes.
1. Explore
the island and cul-du-sac area
2. Identify
costs associated with the public street and make sure it’s wide enough
3. Sidewalk
connections
4. 8’
boulevard
5. No
parking along the east side of the road at the parking garage
6. Eliminate
parking spaces if possible
7. Follow
up on impervious percentage regulations
8. Are
storm ponds appropriately sized
9. Mitigating
wetland by expanding the southern wetland area and possibly using it for more
storm water infiltration
10. Pathway connection to the
park is important—look at how the Cleveland and Brenner connections occur
11. Keep impervious area to
what is necessary
Chair
DeBenedet said the important thing about the cul-du-sac was to review the
design, whether the island is viable
Member
Neprash moved to adopt the list of 11 recommendations to send on to the
Planning Commission. Member Willenbring seconded.
Ayes: 4
Nays: 0
Motion
carried
7.
Pathway Master Plan
Discussion
Chair
DeBenedet asked what the City’s current funding options were regarding
constructing pathways. Mr. Schwartz said there is no current construction
budget, only a maintenance budget. A construction budget will be a
discussion point for the 2008 budget process.
Ms.
Bloom went through a list of pathways that have already been constructed.
Chair
DeBenedet said he wanted to discuss how to put money back in the budget for
constructing new pathways. He said one step would be to communicate with
other commissions on how they want to proceed. Member Neprash said one
possibility would be a separate, temporary committee set up just to look at
this issue, although he wasn’t convinced that was necessary.
Chair
DeBenedet said he didn’t think the Pathway Master Plan needed to be
completely redone, but that they should request from the City Council the
means to accomplish the recommendations in the old plan within 10 years.
Mr.
Schwartz said he thought they should start out with a general request for
some funding. 2008 budget requests need to be turned in this week. Council
discussion begins in July.
Ms.
Bloom suggested they decide what the actual goals are, for example, are they
going for pathways on both sides of every street. Different goals would
require different funding. Mr. Schwartz said he thought they should start
out recommending $100,000-$150,000 for the 2008 budget.
Mr.
Schwartz asked for input on a schedule on how they want to deal with this
topic.
Chair
DeBenedet said they should start with notifying other commissions and staff
members that the PWETC is looking into reevaluating the 1997 Pathway Master
Plan with a view towards recommending to Council that funds be budgeted on a
regular basis. He also requested a more comprehensive list of which projects
had been completed from the 1997 master plan.
Member
Neprash wanted on-street bike lanes to be included in discussions for
changes.
8.
Agenda for Next Meeting –
June 26, 2007
Drive
of Rice Street – Chair DeBenedet asked Mr. Schwartz to notify the other two
city representatives to the TAC of the tour in case they wanted to attend.
Additional
information on Pathway Master Plan
Northwestern
College Environmental Assessment Worksheet
9.
Northwestern College
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Member Neprash
added this item after the agenda was published.
Member
Neprash asked what the schedule is and when and how do comments get submitted
from the PWETC.
Duane Schwartz passed out the schedule Northwestern College’s consultant had submitted.
Member
Neprash noted that the time between the release of the findings and the final
action by the Council if short--is that wise and can that be changed. Ms.
Bloom said she could check with Community Development.
Member
Fischer said he worked as a project manager preparing these forms himself and
that by the time it’s submitted, most everything has already been worked out,
so there usually isn’t much to take care of at this point.
Mr.
Schwartz said that comments from Commission members could be taken at the
June meeting and still forwarded to the City Council before the final decision.
Chair DeBenedet agreed but said he wasn’t opposed to calling a special
meeting of the Commission if it was necessary.
Member
Neprash said he noticed the Council passed something the other night on the AUAR Twin Lakes. Mr. Schwartz said the Council had authorized the completion of the AUAR
last fall; but due to the original developer proposal being withdrawn, there
was a change of scope needed. The Council authorized completion with the
change of scope.
10. Adjournment
|