My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-07-24_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
2012-07-24_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/31/2012 9:07:28 AM
Creation date
8/31/2012 9:07:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
7/24/2012
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
movement perspective—both for animals and people (page 4, incorporate <br /> "perpetuate wildlife" as an element) with green corridors making for healthier <br /> transportation corridors. <br /> Chair Vanderwall opined that a more defined element was needed and this made <br /> some sense. <br /> Member Stenlund noted that it was in"Context Sensitive Design" included <br /> natural pathways for how wildlife moved, typically along water corridors. <br /> Chair Vanderwall suggested "wildlife corridor" would provide better language. <br /> In the context of road construction projects, Ms. Bloom questioned how wildlife <br /> would be taken into consideration (e.g. Lexington Avenue reconstruction). <br /> Member DeBenedet suggested the addition of a bullet point (page 4)in the list of <br /> elements entitled: "environmental corridors and wildlife movement." <br /> Member Stenlund concurred, noting that this included human movement on green <br /> space, but also provided for wildlife movement as well. <br /> On Page 5, Member DeBenedet noted Member Stenlund's suggested to include <br /> `federal"as a primary jurisdiction or public entity. Members concurred. <br /> Member DeBenedet questioned how to address this as a City of Roseville plan for <br /> the overall community versus a vocal minority or one neighborhood, and how to <br /> best define overall project costs. <br /> Ms. Bloom agreed that this would be a challenge, and used street lights as an <br /> example of consensus building, and when costs are found to be excessive, but <br /> how best to define excessive. <br /> Chair Vanderwall noted the options available for lighting alternatives, <br /> diminishing the opinion of a select few or one individual. <br /> Member DeBenedet concurred, noting that the Assessment Policy, as revised, <br /> addressed that, and if an option was chosen they would pay applicable assessment <br /> costs. <br /> Member DeBenedet reviewed other bullet points (page 5) and his decision to <br /> strike out"topographic" (e.g. Dale Street) as a cost, and natural resources <br /> included within the environmental safety risks. <br /> In the last sentence of page 5 regarding resources available beyond the City's <br /> Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Member DeBenedet opined that this would <br /> Page 14 of 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.