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
additional monitoring or enforcement was indicated, with the PWET Commission <br />playing a role in researching those projects. <br />Mr. Trudgeon advised that this was a whole different realm of service, in <br />monitoring the completed designs and ensuring regulations are being met that was <br />above and beyond the current budget of his department, unless a significant <br />commitment was provided and additional resources (staff and funding) from the C <br />City's policy- makers. <br />Member Vanderwall suggested having the conversation about a project before its <br />construction and its management or maintenance following when it was initially <br />proposed to ensure developers /builders are aware of the City's expectations and to <br />receive their commitment for future management of the design. <br />Mr. Trudgeon concurred, noting that developers were required to meet a certain <br />standard, and if not meeting that standard or not correcting issues to comply, there <br />would be consequences. <br />Member Stenlund noted that such a process would ensure documentation of the <br />discussions of expectations for later reference if needed. <br />Mr. Trudgeon noted the significant number of applications and permits processed <br />through the Planning Department on a regular basis that were of a routine nature <br />and handled administratively by staff, without proceeding formally to the <br />Planning Commission and /or City Council for approval, but still receiving the <br />same internal review process and routed through each department (DRC) to <br />receive their input based on their expertise for each project. Mr. Trudgeon noted <br />the need for staff to provide more emphasis on that process to assure the public <br />that a thorough review was being done. <br />Mr. Trudgeon suggested further discussion on how to create a trigger to indicate <br />involvement in the review process by the PWET Commission to avoid overtaxing <br />their time, while allowing for valuable interaction. <br />In his previous role as a Planning Commissioner in Roseville, Chair DeBenedet <br />noted the action taken for eliminating review of site plans by the Commission for <br />Conditional Use Permits, through developing a set of performance standards from <br />which staff could work and issue building permits. Chair DeBenedet assured <br />everyone that he was not interested in backtracking; but rather was interested in a <br />voice for the PWET Commission on subdivisions and those types of sites <br />requiring a Conditional Use; while also being kept informed about things being <br />approved administratively or through a more formal process, specifically to <br />observe and ensure that storm water BMP's included mitigation efforts when a <br />property's use indicated increased density. Chair DeBenedet advised that he was <br />not concerned about minor projects, such as construction of a new deck or a <br />minimal increase in site coverage. <br />Page 7 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.