My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2010-10-26_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2010
>
2010-10-26_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/24/2010 12:51:07 PM
Creation date
11/24/2010 12:50:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
10/26/2010
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.
/
14
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
o Infrastructure <br />Mr. Trudgeon expressed interest in hearing the perspective of individual <br />PWET Commissioners through their involvement with the City's <br />infrastructure and correlation with land use review. <br />Member Vanderwall noted that the PWET Commission often reacted to impacts <br />of water management and infrastructure problematic results, and it may be a more <br />cost effective and efficient process to have their review and input of projects early <br />in the process, rather than once the problems occur, specifically for larger and /or <br />controversial development projects or where there have been significant issues <br />(e.g. storm water management in specific areas). Member Vanderwall recognized <br />the constraints of the 60 -day review period, and suggested a parallel process for <br />PWET review without introducing on the Planning Commission process. <br />Member Vanderwall opined that there were areas that the PWET Commission's <br />expertise and additional information would weigh in on development projects, <br />and be beneficial to all parties and provide a broader review for recommendation <br />to the City Council. Member Vanderwall used the proposed asphalt plant as an <br />example, noting that the PWET Commission had initially asked questions early in <br />the review process that are now of significant concern to residents; and questioned <br />if those questions had been pursued early in the process, would their have been <br />such a negative and emotional reaction in the community. Member Vanderwall <br />noted the various levels of expertise brought to the table by each individual <br />Commissioner. <br />Mr. Trudgeon offered his cooperation in accommodating a review process that <br />would work for all parties, while recognizing requirements for various agencies or <br />jurisdiction above and beyond the City of Roseville that were already in place and <br />under which land use review was regulated for compliance. <br />Chair DeBenedet noted storm water management infrastructure improvements at <br />several recent commercial development or redevelopment projects (e.g. HarMar <br />Mall; Rainbow Foods; Ramsey County Library Roseville branch) and echoed <br />City Engineer Bloom's comments on the need to educate the public on how to <br />solve various issues, such as drainage, rather than understanding the rules. Chair <br />DeBenedet recognized the role of the Planning Commission and City Council in <br />land use issues; however, he opined that the City was weak on environmental <br />issues compared to the expectations of its citizens; and further opined that such <br />input from the PWET Commission would be beneficial. Chair DeBenedet also <br />noted problems with the Super America development and how several access <br />issues could have been addressed to avoid the negative realities of the completed <br />project. <br />Chair DeBenedet reviewed the 60 -day review calendar and suggested there may <br />be a window of opportunity for PWET Commission review before a case went <br />before the Planning Commission. Chair DeBenedet highlighted a preference for, <br />at a minimum, input from the PWET Commission on environmental, storm water <br />Page 5 of 14 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.