2011-11-22_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mr. Schwartz noted that the TMP was initially brought forward by the City Council to staff in January or February of 2011, as they asked staff to put it on the PWET Commission's annual work plan, requesting them to consider it a priority for providing a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Schwartz suggested a review of both City Council and PWET Commission meeting minutes from the last several years for the sequence of discussions and charges to the PWET Commission by the City Council. Ms. Gardner questioned why the word "resident" was changed to "citizen" in the TMP; and questioned if that meant that people living outside of Roseville would be allowed input on neighborhood streets within the community. Member Gjerdingen explained that this was his recommended change, providing his rationale that business owners who were not Roseville residents could still have input, but used or were affected by use of Roseville streets. Ms. Gardner questioned if that meant that a resident from Minnetonka could make a request as a"citizen of somewhere." Member Vanderwall responded affirmatively, provided that the Minnetonka resident was a business owner or was developing or redeveloping a business in Roseville. Member Vanderwall advised that he had initially supported retaining the "resident" language; however, Member Gjerdingen had made a valid point and by consensus PWET Commissioners had revised language to "citizen" to allow a business owner standing. Ms. Gardner, playing devil's advocate, questioned the results if someone made a request but was not a Roseville resident. Member Stenlund advised that, unless a business owner, that someone would have no standing. Member Stenlund noted the need for Ms. Gardner to recognize that there was also associated cost participation for neighborhoods or anyone to bring forward a request, negating many requests unless those requesting a tool were willing to fund a specific available option. Member Vanderwall concurred, noting that part of the process for each request was submission of a petition. Ms. Gardner questioned, since the County Road C-2 vote was "rushed through" on October 17, 2011, and this policy "conveniently didn't apply," at what point would the TMP begin to apply to County Road C-2. Mr. Schwartz advised that, like most policies, the TMP would become effective upon its adoption— and funding—by the City Council; and would be based on a case-by-case consideration of requests and their nature, whether for temporary traffic measures, requiring a traffic study, or other review. Page 9 of 16