Laserfiche WebLink
264 <br />suggested a better definition of the duties or charge of the PWETC was necessary. <br />265 <br />Chair Vanderwall suggested that current language was too broad, and needed <br />266 <br />more specificity in some areas. <br />267 <br />268 <br />Member DeBenedet concurred, suggesting an additional subheading or <br />269 <br />replacement for "C" or "D," allowing the PWETC to initiate studies pertaining to <br />270 <br />topics of current interest in the field of public works, environment, and /or <br />271 <br />transportation (e.g. LED street lighting). <br />272 <br />273 <br />Member Stenlund concurred, noting the importance of other areas (e.g. MS4 <br />274 <br />annual monitoring and reporting, recycling issue studies); and other things that <br />275 <br />are high functions of the PWETC; along with r useful functions intended to <br />276 <br />take some of the load off the City Council. <br />277 <br />278 <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that, while this ordinance is very preliminary, he <br />279 <br />would provide the PWETC's feed City Manager Malinen. Mr. Schwartz <br />280 <br />noted the typical intent to keep or es more general in nat and not have <br />281 <br />them to detailed, allowing for change roced ore speci d as needed. <br />282 <br />283 <br />Member Gjerdingen expressed concern wit me 48 of the ordinance and the age <br />284 <br />requirements, suggesting that it be changed to age 18. <br />285 <br />286 <br />Chair Vanderwall clarified that this spoke to student representation versus regular <br />287 <br />members of commissions; and their service during a school year due to the <br />288 <br />transitory nature of their service as ex- officio members of a commission. <br />289 <br />290 7. County Road D Reconstruction Project Preliminary Design <br />291 City Engineer Bloom reviewed this proposed 2013 joint project of the Cities of <br />292 Shoreview and Roseville for design and reconstruction of County Road D, as <br />293 detailed in the staff report dated October 23, 2012. Ms. Bloom advised that the <br />294 City of Shoreview was taking the lead (e.g. plans, specifications, and construction <br />295 management); and reviewed those overall plans with the PWETC, and reported on <br />296 open house discussions and site visits with residents to -date, as well as future <br />297 communication efforts. Ms. Bloom opined that the affected residents were well - <br />298 represented with the exception of the School District No. 623, the Church, and the <br />299 only commercial property at the southeast intersection of County Road D and <br />300 Lexington Avenue. <br />301 <br />302 Ms. Bloom noted that this was a County turnback road (evenly split between the <br />303 cities) and therefore was a Minnesota State Aid (MSA) street and the design <br />304 would need to be based on a ten (10) ton road, currently at 32' width today, but <br />305 widening out at the Lexington intersection. Ms. Bloom advised that a formal <br />306 right turn lane was proposed. Ms. Bloom advised that the signal lights at the <br />307 Lexington Avenue intersection were in good shape, and Ramsey County had <br />308 determined that they would not be replaced. <br />309 <br />Page 7 of 17 <br />