My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-11-22_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-11-22_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/22/2011 9:36:57 AM
Creation date
12/22/2011 9:36:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/22/2011
Commission/Committee - Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Gardner questions the process of the TMP, once finalized by the PWET <br /> Commission, at the City Council level. <br /> Mr. Schwartz advised that, once approved by the PWET Commission for <br /> recommendation to the City Council, staff would introduce it to the City Council, <br /> anticipating that this would be sometime in early 2012; and at that point, <br /> depending on the amount of City Council-level discussion and potential revisions, <br /> the process would be further impacted by whether those potential revisions or <br /> other issues brought up during discussion by the City Council could be <br /> sufficiently addressed at a staff level, or if the City Council would send it back to <br /> the PWET Commission for additional work and resubmission. <br /> Member Vanderwall noted that the TMP is probably not on the City Council's <br /> highest priority list. <br /> Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting the many unknowns at this time; and opining that <br /> the City Council's most immediate issue would probably be, if found to be an <br /> acceptable policy, the TMP could be funded with existing budget resources or if <br /> other funding sources would need to be found for implementation of any of the <br /> TMP's tools. <br /> Roger Toogood, 601 Terrace Court <br /> Mr. Toogood had provided his written comments via e-mail dated November 3, <br /> 2011; and disseminated by staff as a bench handout at the meeting, attached <br /> hereto and made apart hereof. Mr. Toogood verbally expounded on those <br /> written comments. <br /> In response to Mr. Toogood's perspective on inconsistent speed limits in some <br /> areas, Member Vanderwall stated that the PWET Commission's focus and <br /> discipline had been to develop the TMP aimed at neighborhood streets, not <br /> arterial streets. <br /> Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting that potentially, there may be speed limit <br /> inconsistencies; however, he noted that they would require a more comprehensive <br /> review. Mr. Schwartz advised that speed consistencies had never been looked at <br /> comprehensively throughout the City; since many of them were County roads. In <br /> response to Mr. Toogood's question if the City could influence the County and <br /> request a speed study, Mr. Schwartz cautioned that the state commissioner would <br /> reset speed limits if indicated following a speed limit study, often resulting in <br /> those speed limits being increased based on an average, and often the opposite of <br /> what most neighborhoods were initially seeking. At the request of Mr. Toogood, <br /> Mr. Schwartz confirmed that standard speed limits, if not posted on roadways, <br /> was 30 MPH. <br /> Page 10 of 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.