2012-10-23_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

suggested a better definition of the duties or charge of the PWETC was necessary. Chair Vanderwall suggested that current language was too broad, and needed more specificity in some areas. Member DeBenedet concurred, suggesting an additional subheading or replacement for"C" or"D," allowing the PWETC to initiate studies pertaining to topics of current interest in the field of public works, environment, and/or transportation (e.g. LED street lighting). Member Stenlund concurred, noting the importance of other areas (e.g. MS4 annual monitoring and reporting, recycling issues/studies); and other things that are high functions of the PWETC; along with other useful functions intended to take some of the load off the City Council. Mr. Schwartz advised that, while this draft ordinance is very preliminary, he would provide the PWETC's feedback to City Manager Malinen. Mr. Schwartz noted the typical intent to keep ordinances more general in nature, and not have them to detailed, allowing for changes in procedure more specific and as needed. Member Gjerdingen expressed concern with line 48 of the ordinance and the age requirements, suggesting that it be changed to age 18. Chair Vanderwall clarified that this spoke to student representation versus regular members of commissions; and their service during a school year due to the transitory nature of their service as ex-officio members of a commission. 7. County Road D Reconstruction Project Preliminary Design City Engineer Bloom reviewed this proposed 2013 joint project of the Cities of Shoreview and Roseville for design and reconstruction of County Road D, as detailed in the staff report dated October 23, 2012. Ms. Bloom advised that the City of Shoreview was taking the lead (e.g. plans, specifications, and construction management); and reviewed those overall plans with the PWETC, and reported on open house discussions and site visits with residents to-date, as well as future communication efforts. Ms. Bloom opined that the affected residents were well- represented with the exception of the School District No. 623, the Church, and the only commercial property at the southeast intersection of County Road D and Lexington Avenue. Ms. Bloom noted that this was a County turnback road (evenly split between the cities) and therefore was a Minnesota State Aid (MSA) street and the design would need to be based on a ten (10)ton road, currently at 32' width today, but widening out at the Lexington intersection. Ms. Bloom advised that a formal right turn lane was proposed. Ms. Bloom advised that the signal lights at the Lexington Avenue intersection were in good shape, and Ramsey County had determined that they would not be replaced. Page 7 of 17