Laserfiche WebLink
321 <br />322 <br />323 <br />324 <br />325 <br />326 <br />327 <br />328 <br />329 <br />330 <br />331 <br />332 <br />333 <br />334 <br />335 <br />336 <br />337 <br />338 <br />339 <br />340 <br />341 <br />342 <br />343 <br />344 <br />345 <br />346 <br />347 <br />348 <br />349 <br />350 <br />351 <br />352 <br />353 <br />354 <br />355 <br />356 <br />357 <br />358 <br />359 <br />360 <br />361 <br />362 <br />363 <br />364 <br />365 <br />Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes <br />Page 8, January 24, 2017 <br />on intersections and existing safety concerns or bottlenecks throughout the <br />community. <br />Chair Cihacek asked if it didn't cost the city more to hire two consultants, or <br />require a higher front-end cost if the two were not integrated into one contract. <br />Chair Cihacek opined that it seemed that there would have been a lower impact <br />and higher cost in using the Best Value Procurement method for the whole <br />project, providing a stronger specialty subset. Even though Roseville was not <br />seeing any major changes in its transportation system, Chair Cihacek suggested <br />that the Arden Hills' development of the Rice Creek Co ons (former TCAAP <br />site) should be taken into consideration for regional tr ation issues as part <br />of the comprehensive plan update. <br />Mr. Culver assured the PWETC that the <br />Metropolitan Council's regional documen <br />Arden Hills, with the Rice Creek Comm <br />county and state roadways. <br />Member Thurnau sought clarification as <br />remained a separate documeversus becon <br />plan document. <br />u e pro ss would look to the <br />ose Chang in land use in <br />development trick own into city, <br />y t e Pathway Master Plan <br />in of the overall comprehensive <br />Mr. Culver advised that he was clea he rat ale, but reported that the <br />Transportation Plan and Pathwa r Id remain as two separate <br />documents, by to the co ehensive an, similar to that of the Water <br />Surface PI a nd of ppendices o the comprehensive plan. Mr. Culver <br />suggested be to ain separati those plans from the comprehensive <br />plan itself to a i to be bject to review and comment by the <br />Met polit Cou if a revised with each of those documents <br />r ming 1 doc is allowing the city to retain more control over than a <br />ce every ten upd ndated by the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Culver <br />rated that th wo co onents were considered planning documents, and it <br />ha arently pr be eficial during the history of the community to retain <br />then <br />At the re7onsultant <br />Member Wozniak, Mr. Freihammer reiterated that the last <br />update ofns was done enmass with the overall update, even though a <br />separate shad worked on the transportation aspects. However, Mr. <br />Freihammer reported that the last update was more extensive versus technical, <br />such as having more emphasis on the Twin Lakes Parkway and other major <br />components at that time. Also, Mr. Freihammer advised that a Technical <br />Advisory Group (TAC) would be scheduling meetings during the process and <br />seeking public input, with the intent to use the PWETC to receive that comment <br />and feedback on the plan moving forward. <br />