My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012-08-27_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
2012-08-27_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/1/2012 9:51:34 AM
Creation date
10/1/2012 9:51:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
8/27/2012
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.
/
15
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
days) by approximately November 15, 2012, and ultimate City Council adoption <br /> in December of 2012. <br /> Ms. Nestingen reviewed the Table of Comments and highlighted those sections <br /> with significant revision or additional content based on input received at the last <br /> presentation to the PWETC. <br /> Several typographical and formatting issues were noted, with Ms. Nestingen <br /> advising that the final PDF document would be corrected once the next draft was <br /> updated. <br /> Section 1.2 Organization and Scope (page 2) <br /> Member DeBenedet noted that 2003 was inconsistent with the staff memorandum <br /> stating 2002; with Ms. Bloom advising that the staff memorandum date was <br /> incorrect, as that was when the process initially started. <br /> Section 2 Physical Environment (page 4) <br /> Member Stenlund questioned where the "Roseville Complete Streets" was <br /> included; with Ms. Bloom responding that it was included as a bullet point in the <br /> Goals section. <br /> Member Stenlund suggested that it also be included in Section 2.3 under the <br /> Sustainability area, as he preferred that it be introduced fairly early in the verbiage <br /> before it became lost in the reading of such an extensive document. <br /> Mr. Leaf and Ms. Nestingen suggested that it be included in the Introduction area <br /> or as a topic of the Executive Summary as a sustainability theme to call out. Mr. <br /> Leaf noted that the Executive Summary had yet to be completed and/or presented <br /> to the PWETC. <br /> Member DeBenedet concurred with Member Stenlund, opining that it was also <br /> worthwhile to specifically state how this document ties into the Comprehensive <br /> Plan and the prior Imagine Roseville 2025 community engagement document. <br /> Member DeBenedet opined that that should be brought in and developed as a goal <br /> or aspiration, not simply because a higher authority is making the City of <br /> Roseville do it, but having the support of the community and its residents. <br /> Member DeBenedet concurred that this needed to be addressed early in the <br /> document before a reader lost interest. <br /> Chair Vanderwall, with concurrence by Member DeBenedet, suggested adding <br /> language similar to that found in it to that found in Section 8.10 of the <br /> Comprehensive Plan (Purpose/Sustainability). <br /> Ms. Bloom noted that it was also addressed under sustainability issues in Section <br /> 4.7 of this plan. <br /> Page 5 of 15 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.