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
or drainage, or non automobile transportation issues, if not also automobile <br />transportation issues. <br />Member Vanderwall concurred, suggesting that the PWET Commission wasn't so <br />much interested in developing a statistical background, but could provide <br />questions to consider beyond the concerns addressed by the Planning <br />Commission. <br />Member Felice opined that, given the significant public concern raised with the <br />proposed asphalt plant, it would be of benefit for the City to proactively recognize <br />potential issues to be addressed before they came to a head. <br />Chair DeBenedet noted the PWET Commission's expertise in making <br />recommendations for conditions, such as for the proposed asphalt plant <br />application for a Conditional Use for outdoor storage, addressing specifics beyond <br />those considered by the Planning Commission and /or City Council, simply based <br />on the interests of the PWET Commission. <br />Member Stenlund recognized the review process and time constraints; however, <br />he noted the need for the PWET Commission to at least be aware of applications <br />being processes to alert staff to potential issues. Member Stenlund, as an <br />example, used impervious surfaces beyond their installation and how those <br />surfaces were maintained long -term, given their impacts to the City overall and <br />environmental concerns for water quality. Member Stenlund noted potential <br />questions that could be developed to seek input from developers on their long <br />range maintenance plans and design standards before the results became the <br />City's problem related to water quality. However, Member Stenlund noted that, if <br />the PWET Commission remained unaware of proposed changes in land use, they <br />couldn't be proactive in making recommendation for future design standards to <br />protect water quality and MS4 issues post- construction and Best Management <br />Practices (BMP's) for maintenance. Member Stenlund noted the ramifications to <br />the water quality for a resident to install a pool, and how they managed the water <br />drained from the pool, that could have significant impacts if not handled correctly. <br />Mr. Trudgeon sought more specificity from Commissioners on which permits and <br />applications they wanted to review. <br />Member Stenlund suggested that the PWET Commission be a participant in the <br />process by reviewing how a project would be maintained post- construction, to <br />review those things that could affect the quality of life for the entire community; <br />and addressing the need to be proactive in pursuing improved storm water quality <br />for future generations. Member Stenlund noted the need for PWET Commission <br />involvement when the City was considering vacating easements or rights -of -way, <br />since ownership of the property now was certainly less expensive than <br />repurchasing it if a future need developed. Member Stenlund suggested some type <br />of trigger or threshold be created to determine if and when a project needed <br />Page 6 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.