Laserfiche WebLink
275 <br />276 <br />277 <br />278 <br />279 <br />280 <br />281 <br />282 <br />283 <br />284 <br />285 <br />286 <br />287 <br />288 <br />289 <br />290 <br />291 <br />292 <br />293 <br />294 <br />295 <br />296 <br />297 <br />298 <br />299 <br />300 <br />301 <br />302 <br />303 <br />304 <br />305 <br />306 <br />307 <br />308 <br />309 <br />310 <br />311 <br />312 <br />313 <br />314 <br />315 <br />316 <br />317 <br />318 <br />319 <br />320 <br />Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes <br />Page 7, January 24, 2017 <br />including opportunities for grant funds, all those components would serve to <br />inform projects and their costs. Mr. Culver also noted that as new needs came <br />forward, or the City Council was able to fund segments or projects not included as <br />priorities in the current plan, they could be recommended at that time. <br />Chair Cihacek sought clarification, with confirmation by Mr. Culver, as to the <br />PWETC's review of the current plan and a potentially different ranking system <br />for priorities and pathway sections within a ten-year budget cycle; as well as the <br />intent to reintroduce the plan as currently written to obtain public comment, even <br />if it was found that it required significant changes. AL <br />Mr. Culver noted that the process would also take a tage of other community <br />plans for wider consideration to allow the city t e a position to seek input <br />from the public for PWETC consideration as it sidered prioritizing segments. <br />As to Chair Cihacek's concern as to how th ctions are made based on the <br />PWETC's recommendations, Mr. Culv clarified that the focuses with the <br />transportation consultant for this porti the co rehensive pl date would <br />focus on public rights-of-way and tra rtati nks; while e Parks & <br />Recreation Commission's view was more recreational perspective versus <br />the PWETC's view of trans rtation corridor outes, even though they may <br />frequently overlap. <br />Chair Cihacek opined that in or for <br />would need recommendations on rl <br />%SU <br />estioned <br />tely from <br />cnapter). <br />TC toferevelop a strong plan, they <br />g t to achieve an economy <br />this p ion of the comprehensive plan <br />overall consultant. <br />Sn <br />underr <br />previous plan update, all chapters were <br />Oleith _th ral consultant using a subconsultant for <br />r.Freihammer reported that this less extensive update <br />rol and specialization in transportation planning, <br />sions and connections; hopefully providing more <br />g as a small subset of the broader plan update. Mr. <br />c that whatever consultant is chosen for the transportation <br />still be working closely with the general consultant, including <br />.igs for public engagement, including how the transportation <br />th the broader comprehensive plan update (e.g. land use <br />Mr. Culver noted that, since the City of Roseville was mostly a fully -developed <br />community versus an undeveloped community, the need for land use as the key <br />component of what the transportation system has to support, this update wasn't as <br />inter -related as that process would need to be. While there is still interaction <br />between the two (e.g. density, commercial areas, impacts to localized <br />intersections), this transportation plan update didn't require building any new <br />freeways or east/west corridors through Roseville, but would instead be focusing <br />