My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-11-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2010
>
2010-11-23_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/20/2011 8:54:04 AM
Creation date
11/19/2010 2:16:43 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
11/23/2010
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.
/
31
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
review. Chair DeBenedet suggested that such review criteria could be included in <br />ordinance language as part of the process. However, Chair DeBenedet noted the <br />timing constraints and current meeting schedules of the PWET and Planning <br />Commissions and the need to work within those confines or make adjustments, <br />while providing more formal motions in meeting minutes to reflect that review. <br />.Mr. Trudgeon noted that most items may not need a decision, but simply provide <br />an information opportunity, since City Engineer Bloom and Public Works <br />Director Schwartz were involved in the review of all cased. Mr. Trudgeon <br />suggested that perhaps a brief summary of specific cases would suffice. <br />Member Vanderwall noted that receipt of such a summary in the PWET <br />Commission meeting packet provided for limited review time or response time <br />from staff or a developer, if a project was flagged for concern or additional <br />information. Member Vanderwall spoke in support of receiving the information <br />via e -mail to provide a better response time, and allow questions or concerns to be <br />e- mailed back to staff so, when discussion occurred at a public meeting, there <br />could be intelligent discussion and adequate responses to potential issues. <br />General discussion included timing of Planning Commission meetings and public <br />notice requirements; potential refinement and adjustment of the initial criteria and <br />process itself; the current development climate based on market conditions in <br />comparison to past activity; and the PWET Commission's desire for additional <br />BMP's. <br />Mr. Schwartz suggested that he and Mr. Trudgeon work with staff, based on <br />tonight's comments, and then he would return to the PWET Commission with <br />additional information and suggestions. <br />4r. Trudgeon thanked PWET Commissioners for their enlightening and <br />roductive discussion. <br />Chair DeBenedet suggested that the focus and interest of the PWET Commission <br />was on subdivisions, rezoning to a higher density, design and /or performance <br />standards, Comprehensive Plan amendments, Zoning text amendments, or <br />changes leading to a higher use that could have environmental and /or <br />transportation impacts; but probably not Conditional Use applications. <br />6. Conservation Water Rate Impact <br />Mr. Schwartz reviewed the written information provided by Finance Director <br />Chris Miller dated October 15, 2010 related to water use impacts resulting from <br />the water conservation -based rate structure, in place since January of 2009. In <br />summary, both Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Miller concurred that it was too early to <br />provide a meaningful and accurate analysis of customer usage behaviors and any <br />significant conservation efforts. Mr. Miller had noted in his comments that <br />Page 9 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.