2017-03-28_PWETCPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville PWET Commission Meeting Minutes Page 10, February 28, 2017 412 Discussion ensued regarding upcoming agendas beyond those listed in the staff 413 report; including future tax increment financing (TIF) update and education for 414 the PWETC (March agenda) and as part of the broader Capital Improvement 415 Program (CIP) overview; election of officers (April agenda); and digging deeper 416 into stormwater management concerns as per tonight's discussion. 417 418 Chair Cihacek expressed interest in staff providing the PWETC with copies of 419 current policies for residential and commercial stormwater management, 420 including city code, watershed district(s) requirements, and other regulatory arena 421 considerations and mandates. Chair Cihacek stated ththis included current 422 gaps, areas that were more or less restrictive, and other ' oughts to start that 423 conversation (April or May agenda). At the request ember Seigler, staff was 424 asked to also provide any old or new regulation n e new U. S. President 425 that may be revised or anything in city code t was vant and/or needing 426 review to determine if still valid. 427 428 To save meeting time, Chair Cihacek gested itNividual com*coents s do that 429 research and review outside of the meeting and then ring any and/or 430 suggestions to the PWETC when that discussion was scheduled on a future 431 agenda, especially if they foy anything outdated or needing revision. 432 433 Mr. Culver noted that many code provisions fell under the Planning 434 Commission umbrella As part of tftMr. Culver referenced the city's 435 subdivision ordinance currently under rOFiJWV revisions, including that section 436 of code and others tha�y be invo d. At thijtime, Mr. Culver noted that city 437 code included detail ngineering equirements for new developments and 438 subdivisions; with the current revision ing that language from ordinance and 439 putting it into a more manageable engi ring manual to allow more flexibility in 440 mak,,WIMJI&es and updates fmodern practices outside of an ordinance 441me formal public hearing. Mr. Culver noted that this made city code 442 eaner and less complex. 443 444 Iver notedfit� pco ing discussion (April agenda) for the PWETC would 445 be the transportatiIan update as part of the larger comprehensive plan update; 446 with propo*ould r this week for a consultant to guide the work anticipated 447 to be underct by late March or April with the PWETC then asked to engage 448 in that proAt the request of Chair Cihacek, Mr. Culver clarified that the 449 consultantidentify whichPWETC meetings would be targeted for public 450 input as part of that process; with staff working in conjunction with them to 451 identify which PWETC meetings made the most sense in the overall process. Mr. 452 Culver noted that this update would coincide with public engagement efforts and 453 other public meetings for the comprehensive plan update. Mr. Culver noted that 454 there would also be electronic surveys for this process, hoping for a better success 455 rate than with that of the CS WMP process. At that point, Mr. Culver advised that 456 a draft would be provided for the PWETC and public to respond to at a formal 457 public hearing, anticipated for late summer or early fall.