|
Meeting
Minutes
Tuesday, October 26, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.
1.
Introduction / Call Roll
Chair DeBenedet called the
meeting to order at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Members
Present: Chair Jim DeBenedet; and Members Steve Gjerdingen; Jan
Vanderwall; Dwayne Stenlund; and Joan Felice
Staff
Present: Public Works Director Duane Schwartz; Community
Development Director Patrick Trudgeon
2.
Public Comments
None.
3.
Approval of September 28, 2010 Meeting Minutes
Member Vanderwall moved,
Member Stenlund seconded, approval of the September 28, 2010 meeting as
amended.
Corrections:
§
Page 2, 2nd Paragraph (Felice)
Typographical
correction: “egress”
§
Page 2, 3rd Paragraph (DeBenedet, Felice and
Gjerdingen)
Correct to read: “Further
discussion included an update of the Fairview Avenue pathway project, now
entering its final design stage; and working through profile, easement and
cost issues with the State of MN for value engineering bids yet this fall and
anticipated early spring 2011 construction. Further discussion included the
need for included the need for follow-through for completion and/or removal
of perimeter control drainage and culvert work on Victoria Street; and
drainage materials adjacent to Prince of Peace Lutheran Church.”
§
Page 9, Item 10, 2nd paragraph (Felice)
Typographical correction:
“affects”
§
Page 9, Item 11, 1st paragraph (Felice)
Typographical correction:
“evidenced”
§
Page 10, 1st incomplete paragraph (Felice)
Typographical correction:
“starting”
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
4.
Communication Items
Mr. Schwartz provided an update
on ongoing 2010 construction projects.
Rice Street Project
Mr. Schwartz updated members on
progress on the Rice Street project and challenges in converting from the
current to east half of the new main bridge as well as weather implications
to completion of the identified portions of the project yet this year.
Additional discussion included
the need, as requested by Mr. Schwartz, for more specific and accurate
signage related to the three (3) day closure of the road to make the final
connections; difficulty in school bus turning north of B-2; location of the
pathway around the Capitol View area, and the current steep drop-off; routing
pedestrian and bicycle traffic away from the County Road B-2 and Rice as well
as Minnesota and Rice intersections during construction; and pending water
main construction to be completed.
Mr. Schwartz advised that it
remained the City’s position to the contractor that a continuous pathway was
needed to move pedestrians, similar to that used for vehicular traffic given
the significant pedestrian and bicycle traffic from surrounding apartments
and bus routes.
Twin Lakes Area
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
majority of the concrete work had been completed, with pavement within the
next few weeks, weather permitting, at least of the base coat if not the
final lift.
Other projects
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
City Council approved bids for storm water improvements by the Midland Hills
area at Midland Hills Road and Rosewood Lane; through expansion of existing
ponds areas and an underground chamber for additional storage.
Discussion of other projects by
members and staff included preconstruction notices in process for any
roadwork affecting traffic and bus routes; anticipation that stop lights in
the Twin Lakes area will be operational yet this year; and staff’s work with
the City Attorney to resolve work with the contractor responsible for
maintenance of the trees along the County Road C corridor and pursuit of
legal means to replace dead trees next spring, through use of the significant
amount of money held back by the City.
5.
Land Use Review / Role of PWETC
Community Development Director
Patrick Trudgeon was present to discuss land use application approval
process, timelines per state statute, and to discuss areas where the PWET
Commission could provide input in the process. Mr. Trudgeon provided several
bench handouts for reference during the discussion, further detailing the
land use application and approval process and the role of the Planning
Commission in accordance with State Statute and City Code; and Public
Hearings held at the Planning Commission level in accordance with City Code;
all within the proscribed 60-day review period allowed by statute for land
use applications. Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the City’s “One-Step Land Use
Application Process” and the types of applications reviewed administratively
by staff and those requiring the more formal review and public hearing
process before the Planning Commission, with mailed and published public
notices.
Mr. Trudgeon reviewed a sample
application and the approximate time line to precede with the 60-day
application/review process for land use applications, with few exceptions;
and ramifications in not meeting that approval deadline through arbitrary
automatic approval indicating the City didn’t meet due process for the
applicant. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the City could request extension for an
additional 60 days; or the applicant could waive the review time or
voluntarily extend the review time for special projects or unique issues.
Mr. Trudgeon provided some items
for discussion and/or considerations in determining a role for the PWET
Commission in becoming involved in land use cases:
§
The 60-day review rule
How will adding another layer of
review or adding another commission to the approval process compromise the
ability to make a timely decision, depending on meeting schedules and
ensuring all meeting deadlines are met?
§
Are we adding another level of bureaucracy?
Are we making the process
user-friendly for the applicant; whether homeowners or big developers?
§
Mission of the PWET Commission
In the City Council’s charge to
and in defining the role of the PWET Commission, with land use applications already
reviewed by Planning Department staff, the Design Review Committee (DRC -
representing management staff of each City Department), and potentially the
Planning Commission, and ultimately the City Council in determining
compatibility of the land use application with City Code and the
Comprehensive Plan, would the PWET Commission’s review of land use cases
detract from their other agenda items and interests?
§
Focus on specific transportation and/or environmental
interests
o
Traffic Studies
Mr. Trudgeon noted that every
land use or change impacts roadways in some way; with some major developments
or redevelopments requiring review of traffic counts or a traffic studies.
While this would fall under the realm of the PWET Commission, Planning staff
already relies on the expertise of Public Works Director Duane Schwartz and
City Engineer Debra Bloom (in their representation on the DRC) as they review
each land use application, seek additional information, or make
recommendations during the review process.
What additional role would the
PWET Commission have other than to rubber stamp staff’s analysis?
o
Suggestions for PWET Commission involvement in the process
from the perspective of the Planning Department
As the City periodically updates
its codes, or special circumstances indicate such a change is evident, and in
direct relationship to the PWET Commission’s charge from the City Council,
their input is invaluable. In retrospect, now that the zoning code rewrite
is pretty far advanced, having had input from the PWET Commission on their
areas of interest would have been prudent.
o
Does the City Council need to revise the charge of the PWET
Commission?
Given the recent proposed
asphalt plant as an example, and the PWET Commission’s role in making
recommendations to advance the discussion, and anticipating additional future
issues to come forward, if the PWET Commission had been tasked to review the
application initially, would the controversy have been diminished or the
outcome more clearly determined earlier in the review process? Mr. Trudgeon
noted that, while typical land use applications are straightforward and non
controversial, they each represent change, and can be divisive when those
with specific interests (drainage, traffic, tree preservation) feel they haven’t
been sufficiently represented.
o
How would the PWET Commission handle additional workloads on
their monthly agenda?
o
Environmental Review by the PWET Commission
Mr. Trudgeon noted the
occasional Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) through the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and questioned how the PWET Commission could
facilitate the City’s role in that process.
o
Public Easements and/or Right-of-Way Vacations
Mr. Trudgeon advised that he and
Mr. Schwartz had discussed the PWET Commission’s role in public easements
and/or vacations; and if the PWET Commission should make recommendations
related to whether this area appeared to have a future use for the City or if
it was deemed surplus. Mr. Trudgeon noted that, even though now such action
required a public hearing at the Planning Commission level, was that required
by statute, or could that review and recommendation to the City Council be
transferred to the PWET Commission, who would in turn hold the public hearing
and make formal recommendation to the City Council? Mr. Trudgeon advised
that the City had a request for only 3 – 5 vacations or easements annually.
o
Infrastructure
Mr. Trudgeon expressed interest
in hearing the perspective of individual PWET Commissioners through their
involvement with the City’s infrastructure and correlation with land use
review.
Member Vanderwall noted that the
PWET Commission often reacted to impacts of water management and
infrastructure problematic results, and it may be a more cost-effective and
efficient process to have their review and input of projects early in the
process, rather than once the problems occur, specifically for larger and/or
controversial development projects or where there have been significant
issues (e.g. storm water management in specific areas). Member Vanderwall
recognized the constraints of the 60-day review period, and suggested a
parallel process for PWET review without introducing on the Planning
Commission process. Member Vanderwall opined that there were areas that the
PWET Commission’s expertise and additional information would weigh in on
development projects, and be beneficial to all parties and provide a broader
review for recommendation to the City Council. Member Vanderwall used the
proposed asphalt plant as an example, noting that the PWET Commission had
initially asked questions early in the review process that are now of
significant concern to residents; and questioned if those questions had been
pursued early in the process, would their have been such a negative and emotional
reaction in the community. Member Vanderwall noted the various levels of
expertise brought to the table by each individual Commissioner.
Mr. Trudgeon offered his
cooperation in accommodating a review process that would work for all
parties, while recognizing requirements for various agencies or jurisdiction
above and beyond the City of Roseville that were already in place and under
which land use review was regulated for compliance.
Chair DeBenedet noted storm water
management infrastructure improvements at several recent commercial
development or redevelopment projects (e.g. – HarMar Mall; Rainbow Foods;
Ramsey County Library – Roseville branch) and echoed City Engineer Bloom’s
comments on the need to educate the public on how to solve various issues,
such as drainage, rather than understanding the rules. Chair DeBenedet
recognized the role of the Planning Commission and City Council in land use
issues; however, he opined that the City was weak on environmental issues
compared to the expectations of its citizens; and further opined that such
input from the PWET Commission would be beneficial. Chair DeBenedet also
noted problems with the Super America development and how several access
issues could have been addressed to avoid the negative realities of the
completed project.
Chair DeBenedet reviewed the
60-day review calendar and suggested there may be a window of opportunity for
PWET Commission review before a case went before the Planning Commission.
Chair DeBenedet highlighted a preference for, at a minimum, input from the
PWET Commission on environmental, storm water or drainage, or non-automobile
transportation issues, if not also automobile transportation issues.
Member Vanderwall concurred,
suggesting that the PWET Commission wasn’t so much interested in developing a
statistical background, but could provide questions to consider beyond the
concerns addressed by the Planning Commission.
Member Felice opined that, given
the significant public concern raised with the proposed asphalt plant, it
would be of benefit for the City to proactively recognize potential issues to
be addressed before they came to a head.
Chair DeBenedet noted the PWET
Commission’s expertise in making recommendations for conditions, such as for
the proposed asphalt plant application for a Conditional Use for outdoor
storage, addressing specifics beyond those considered by the Planning
Commission and/or City Council, simply based on the interests of the PWET
Commission.
Member Stenlund recognized the
review process and time constraints; however, he noted the need for the PWET
Commission to at least be aware of applications being processes to alert
staff to potential issues. Member Stenlund, as an example, used impervious
surfaces beyond their installation and how those surfaces were maintained
long-term, given their impacts to the City overall and environmental concerns
for water quality. Member Stenlund noted potential questions that could be
developed to seek input from developers on their long-range maintenance plans
and design standards before the results became the City’s problem related to
water quality. However, Member Stenlund noted that, if the PWET Commission
remained unaware of proposed changes in land use, they couldn’t be proactive
in making recommendation for future design standards to protect water quality
and MS4 issues post-construction and Best Management Practices (BMP’s) for
maintenance. Member Stenlund noted the ramifications to the water quality
for a resident to install a pool, and how they managed the water drained from
the pool, that could have significant impacts if not handled correctly.
Mr. Trudgeon sought more
specificity from Commissioners on which permits and applications they wanted
to review.
Member Stenlund suggested that
the PWET Commission be a participant in the process by reviewing how a
project would be maintained post-construction, to review those things that
could affect the quality of life for the entire community; and addressing the
need to be proactive in pursuing improved storm water quality for future
generations. Member Stenlund noted the need for PWET Commission involvement
when the City was considering vacating easements or rights-of-way, since
ownership of the property now was certainly less expensive than repurchasing it
if a future need developed. Member Stenlund suggested some type of trigger or
threshold be created to determine if and when a project needed additional
monitoring or enforcement was indicated, with the PWET Commission playing a
role in researching those projects.
Mr. Trudgeon advised that this
was a whole different realm of service, in monitoring the completed designs
and ensuring regulations are being met that was above and beyond the current
budget of his department, unless a significant commitment was provided and
additional resources (staff and funding) from the C City’s policy-makers.
Member Vanderwall suggested
having the conversation about a project before its construction and its
management or maintenance following when it was initially proposed to ensure
developers/builders are aware of the City’s expectations and to receive their
commitment for future management of the design.
Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting
that developers were required to meet a certain standard, and if not meeting
that standard or not correcting issues to comply, there would be
consequences.
Member Stenlund noted that such a
process would ensure documentation of the discussions of expectations for
later reference if needed.
Mr. Trudgeon noted the
significant number of applications and permits processed through the Planning
Department on a regular basis that were of a routine nature and handled
administratively by staff, without proceeding formally to the Planning
Commission and/or City Council for approval, but still receiving the same
internal review process and routed through each department (DRC) to receive
their input based on their expertise for each project. Mr. Trudgeon noted
the need for staff to provide more emphasis on that process to assure the
public that a thorough review was being done.
Mr. Trudgeon suggested further
discussion on how to create a trigger to indicate involvement in the review
process by the PWET Commission to avoid overtaxing their time, while allowing
for valuable interaction.
In his previous role as a
Planning Commissioner in Roseville, Chair DeBenedet noted the action taken
for eliminating review of site plans by the Commission for Conditional Use
Permits, through developing a set of performance standards from which staff
could work and issue building permits. Chair DeBenedet assured everyone that
he was not interested in backtracking; but rather was interested in a voice
for the PWET Commission on subdivisions and those types of sites requiring a
Conditional Use; while also being kept informed about things being approved
administratively or through a more formal process, specifically to observe
and ensure that storm water BMP’s included mitigation efforts when a
property’s use indicated increased density. Chair DeBenedet advised that he was
not concerned about minor projects, such as construction of a new deck or a
minimal increase in site coverage.
Member Stenlund noted the need
for practical considerations, as an example, where will the snow be stored,
or how handled on a specific site.
Member Vanderwall noted the PWET
Commission may have a vested interest in what a resident or business owner
was putting on their driveway, based on the upcoming agenda item on use of
PAH and water quality impacts. Member Vanderwall further noted the need to
be aware of changing technologies and things that have become common practice
today that were not even available or considered in the past. Member
Vanderwall noted the value of recent field trips to view pathways,
intersections, and/or storm water options and operational practicalities.
Member Stenlund noted the need to
provide environmental benefits for the future community at large by making it
green for tomorrow’s generation, rather than continuing to take, take, take.
Member Stenlund reiterated his opinion that the PWET Commission review fit
into the timing before DRC staff reports go to the Planning Commission,
whether at a public level, or through creation of a review checklist between
the application and DRC; allowing for additional information to be
requested. Member Stenlund noted that most land in Roseville was developed,
and with people doing in-fill development, it would create unique situations
for consideration.
Member Vanderwall suggested that
Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Schwartz cooperatively develop a draft document listing
the review criteria, addressing both the Planning Department and PWET
Commission considerations, using tonight’s discussion and based on past
cases. Member Vanderwall suggested that this list then be provided to the PWET
Commission at a future meeting for further discussion, and possible
additional items; and then back to staff for their reaction and input.
Member Vanderwall opined that the list be kept as simple as possible.
Member Stenlund concurred, noting
the need to be proactive in protecting the City’s overall best interests
rather than the interests of those seeking to use land in Roseville.
Member Gjerdingen suggested that
review by the PWET Commission of staff reports to the Planning Commission
could be used as a filter through which to determine if the PWET Commission
needed to be involved. Member Gjerdingen expressed support for involvement in
developing review criteria to determine which cases needed to be heart by the
PWET Commission, expressing his trust of staff in their review process, but
providing initial and proactive review of larger projects.
Chair DeBenedet opined that
review of certain projects by the PWET Commission, based on the list of
criteria, could be incorporated into the formal review process, alerting the
Planning Commission and City Council of that review. Chair DeBenedet
suggested that such review criteria could be included in ordinance language
as part of the process. However, Chair DeBenedet noted the timing
constraints and current meeting schedules of the PWET and Planning
Commissions and the need to work within those confines or make adjustments,
while providing more formal motions in meeting minutes to reflect that
review.
Mr. Trudgeon noted that most
items may not need a decision, but simply provide an information opportunity,
since City Engineer Bloom and Public Works Director Schwartz were involved in
the review of all cased. Mr. Trudgeon suggested that perhaps a brief summary
of specific cases would suffice.
Member Vanderwall noted that
receipt of such a summary in the PWET Commission meeting packet provided for
limited review time or response time from staff or a developer, if a project
was flagged for concern or additional information. Member Vanderwall spoke
in support of receiving the information via e-mail to provide a better
response time, and allow questions or concerns to be e-mailed back to staff
so, when discussion occurred at a public meeting, there could be intelligent
discussion and adequate responses to potential issues.
General discussion included
timing of Planning Commission meetings and public notice requirements;
potential refinement and adjustment of the initial criteria and process
itself; the current development climate based on market conditions in comparison
to past activity; and the PWET Commission’s desire for additional BMP’s.
Mr. Schwartz suggested that he
and Mr. Trudgeon work with staff, based on tonight’s comments, and then he
would return to the PWET Commission with additional information and suggestions.
Mr. Trudgeon thanked PWET
Commissioners for their enlightening and productive discussion.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that
the focus and interest of the PWET Commission was on subdivisions, rezoning
to a higher density, design and/or performance standards, Comprehensive Plan
amendments, Zoning text amendments, or changes leading to a higher use that
could have environmental and/or transportation impacts; but probably not
Conditional Use applications.
6.
Conservation Water Rate Impact
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the written
information provided by Finance Director Chris Miller dated October 15, 2010
related to water use impacts resulting from the water conservation-based rate
structure, in place since January of 2009. In summary, both Mr. Schwartz and
Mr. Miller concurred that it was too early to provide a meaningful and
accurate analysis of customer usage behaviors and any significant
conservation efforts. Mr. Miller had noted in his comments that Roseville residents were already consuming less water than residents in many other
communities even before the new rate structure was instituted. Mr. Miller
opined that this was most likely due to the relatively few residential
properties having irrigation systems in contract to other second and third
ring suburbs, as well as having a comparable smaller population per
household. It was also noted that weather and rainfall amounts over the past
two (2) years also provided for difficult analysis of the data, and that a
longer timeframe would be preferable to determine the impacts of the
conservation rate structure and usage variables.
Member Vanderwall opined that
high-end water users may be installing better and more efficient sprinkler
heads and controls, in addition to other variables; and noted that at least consumptions
had not increased during the two-year period.
Mr. Schwartz advised that state
law now required rain sensors on all new irrigation systems, whether
residential or commercial; and further advised that once the City’s new meter
system was installed and more detailed data available, it would provide for
better analyses.
Discussion among members and
staff included status of meter conversion and impacts on billings based on
accuracy of reads; educating the public on average water usage and providing
significant incentives to reach goals for reducing average consumption;
providing examples to homeowners of conservation efforts and available
options; future house ratings, based on energy efficiencies and benefits for
prospective homeowners when considering purchasing a home similar to
appliance ratings; encouraging homeowners and business owners to want to
reduce consumption; and the need to provide greater incentives to become a
low-volume user and reduce average consumption.
Chair DeBenedet noted that the
PWET Commission had discussed, several years ago, whether the rate
differential was strong enough to provide incentives to reduce consumption;
and suggested additional discussion may be indicated to provide greater
incentives to change and reduce their consumption.
Members concurred that there were
many more educational opportunities to be provided to provide conservation
information to residents.
Further discussion included
calculating rates in relationship to a model with total City consumptions; and
additional differentials in the rate structure.
Member Stenlund moved, Member
Vanderwall seconded, recommendation to the City Council that the City of
Roseville’s water usage rates be revised to reflect more of a tiered spread
and significant higher rates for greater water consumption, and lower rates
for lower water consumption; with staff providing rate calculations that
would provide a differential at a recommended spread between high and low-end
users of between $1.00 to $1.25, in an attempt to provide incentives for
energy conservation efforts.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Additional discussion included
typical and average gallon consumptions per household; potential use of
census or other available information by the City and School District to
determine household demographics and the size of the home; possible
coordination with the City’s GIS staff as well; and advantages of data
availability in the future through the automated meter reading system for
comparison purposes.
Members encouraged Member
Gjerdingen to research private and public studies already completed in other
suburbs to determine if similar statistics to those in Roseville would
provide insight into average consumption and provide a model to help educate
the public. Chair DeBenedet suggested that Member Gjerdingen pursue research
on suburbs in the southwestern metropolitan area, as well as reviewing
information from Atlanta, GA.
Mr. Schwartz advised that the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had educational programs available, in
which the City was recently enrolled, and he would research goals and
education information through that resource.
Chair DeBenedet requested that
staff provide the PWET Commission feedback at the next meeting related to
their recommendations to the City Council.
7.
Proposed Utility Rates / Funding Overview
Mr. Schwartz advised that
recommended utility rates for 2011 would be presented to the City Council in
November of this year.
Mr. Schwartz briefly summarized
the City’s three (3) utility funds and anticipated operational and capital
needs for 2011, including substantial increases in wholesale water costs and
water treatment services from the Metropolitan Council, with a five percent
(5%) increase in both water purchase and treatment. Mr. Schwartz advised
that Finance Director had a model in place for dividing those costs between
customer classes, and had provided preliminary 2011 utility rates as detailed
in his memorandum to the PWET Commission dated October 19, 2010; and
addressing operational and capital increases; inflationary impacts; and
purchase of wholesale water and treatment.
Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Miller
estimated that an annual 2 to 3% increase over the next ten (10) years would
be required to meet capital needs. Mr. Schwartz noted that, based on the
City’s aging infrastructure, with the majority of pipes fifty (50) years old,
and their needed replacement, capital needs would be significant over the
next thirty (30) years. Mr. Schwartz noted that overall, Roseville’s utility
rates remained competitive when compared to neighboring communities when
compared to cities with city-wide water treatment.
8.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon (PAH) Background Information
Chair DeBenedet noted the
additional information provided by staff on addressing issues of Polycyclic
Aromatic Hydrocarbon’s (PAH’s) in currently being found in pond sediment in
the community and area. Mr. Schwartz provided detailed information on recent
findings in his staff report dated October 26, 2010; and provided a model
ordinance developed by the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) for consideration
by the PWET Commission and subsequent recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. Schwartz reviewed the two (2) ponds having been recently tested through
watershed projects. Mr. Schwartz advised that testing, as well as disposing
of sediment containing PAH’s was extremely expensive for communities.
Discussion included common sense
incentives to remove PAH sediment from the system; language of the model
ordinance and involvement of the City Attorney on a more formal format before
presentation in draft form to the City Council; how and where sediment was
disposed of in specific landfills equipped to seal it; current work among
MPCA staff and City Engineers to determine if a lower cost method, such as
diluting it and mixing it with soils or composting, was feasible.
Member Stenlund noted that such
composting was possible, as long as it had a restricted use, such as on golf
courses or tier one level soils, and not used for children’s playgrounds or
growing vegetables.
Further discussion included
typical seal coating materials used by Cities not including this material,
but uses still found by private vendors for spraying commercial parking lots.
Chair DeBenedet noted that
restricting use would not provide any new restrictions to homeowners or
additional City cost, but actually save money for residents in the future by
making storm water ponds safer, cleaner and more environmentally benign; and
ponds not having to be dredged as often to remove pollutants. Chair DeBenedet
noted that the pollutants impacted natural streams and lakes, with adverse
affects on biological species in those bodies of water.
Member Stenlund noted that there
would still be materials draining off parking lots even with restricting coal
tar products, but that a longer time frame would be achieved before a pond
reached a tier 3 contamination level.
Additional discussion included
percentages of dilution for coal tar based sealers and/or mixing the material
with asphalt products and related environmental impacts based on model
ordinance language; references and further clarification to state statue in
model ordinance language; how to change behavior and enforce the ordinance
once enacted; and non-permitted or licensed use by vendors of PAH materials.
Member Vanderwall suggested
including ordinance language noting the Roseville had experienced pollution
in service waters, impacting home values and quality of life in the
community.
Chair DeBenedet questioned the
intent of the introductory preamble language of model ordinance language and
format proscribed by State Statute.
Mr. Schwartz suggested, and
members concurred unanimously, that the City’s ordinance language should
specifically stipulate that use of any coal tar was strictly prohibited,
and to not allow any percentage of the product to be used in the community.
Chair DeBenedet suggested that
further research be provided by staff and Member Stenlund, and additional
discussion follow at the next PWET Commission meeting; specifically providing
for “no coal tar” use.
Member Stenlund advised that, as
part of his personal research and submission of that information to staff, he
would define coal tar products and provide fact sheets on substitutions of
equal or better driveway protections or color products for the benefit of
homeowners.
9.
Possible Items for Next Meeting – November 23, 2010
Chair DeBenedet confirmed that a
quorum of members would be available for the November 23, 2010 meeting; with
the following items included on the agenda:
§
Scandinavian Stormwater Practices presentation by Randy Neprash
§
Feedback on recommended water rate actions
§
Feedback on land use and development review discussions
§
Feedback on coal tar products
§
Discuss December Meeting Date scheduled for the Christmas week
§
Dale Street design
Member Vanderwall suggested that
many of the above-referenced items could be deferred to January, and the
December meeting cancelled to facilitate holiday schedules.
By consensus, members concurred,
noting that if necessary, an emergency meeting could be called.
General discussion included
status of the County Road B-2 corridor project and staff discussions with
Ramsey County staff related to easement impacts, turn lane work, intersection
improvements based on modeling and available funds to Ramsey County, and
whether mill and overlay or pavement reconstruction was indicated, with final
layouts still pending until January of 2011; and a request by members for
staff discussions with Ramsey County to improve signal timing for safer
pedestrian and bicycle crossings on heavily-used roadways in the City of
Roseville, such as Snelling Avenue.
At the request of Chair
DeBenedet, members expressed interest in a presentation of his Master’s
program related to city infrastructure, to be slated on a future agenda after
January of 2011; with the information subsequently made available for public
dissemination as increased utility rates are considered.
Member Vanderwall moved,
Member Felice seconded, cancelation of the December meeting unless there were
items coming forward at the November 23, 2010 meeting indicating a December
meeting was necessary.
Ayes: 5
Nays: 0
Motion carried.
Further discussion included the
status of staff discussions with MnDOT regarding mowing and maintenance of
medians along Snelling Avenue near the former Ground Round site south of
County Road B-2; pending projects in the area that could incorporate
aesthetic improvements; and future definition by staff for members on the
actual project being considered on Snelling Avenue south of Highway 36 into
St. Paul..
Member Stenlund expressed
interest in storm water systems and options being installed in the community,
some of which currently only receive land use review by the Planning
Commission and/or Community Development staff, and the need to make the
public aware of them for informational and/or educational interest.
10. Adjournment
Chair DeBenedet adjourned the
meeting at approximately 8:47 p.m.
|