2010-10-26_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Stenlund noted the need for practical considerations, as an example, where will the snow be stored, or how handled on a specific site. Member Vanderwall noted the PWET Commission may have a vested interest in what a resident or business owner was putting on their driveway, based on the upcoming agenda item on use of PAH and water quality impacts. Member Vanderwall further noted the need to be aware of changing technologies and things that have become common practice today that were not even available or considered in the past. Member Vanderwall noted the value of recent field trips to view pathways, intersections, and /or storm water options and operational practicalities. Member Stenlund noted the need to provide environmental benefits for the future community at large by making it green for tomorrow's generation, rather than continuing to take, take, take. Member Stenlund reiterated his opinion that the PWET Commission review fit into the timing before DRC staff reports go to the Planning Commission, whether at a public level, or through creation of a review checklist between the application and DRC; allowing for additional information to be requested. Member Stenlund noted that most land in Roseville was developed, and with people doing in -fill development, it would create unique situations for consideration. Member Vanderwall suggested that Mr. Trudgeon and Mr. Schwartz cooperatively develop a draft document listing the review criteria, addressing both the Planning Department and PWET Commission considerations, using tonight's discussion and based on past cases. Member Vanderwall suggested that this list then be provided to the PWET Commission at a future meeting for further discussion, and possible additional items; and then back to staff for their reaction and input. Member Vanderwall opined that the list be kept as simple as possible. Member Stenlund concurred, noting the need to be proactive in protecting the City's overall best interests rather than the interests of those seeking to use land in Roseville. Member Gjerdingen suggested that review by the PWET Commission of staff reports to the Planning Commission could be used as a filter through which to determine if the PWET Commission needed to be involved. Member Gjerdingen expressed support for involvement in developing review criteria to determine which cases needed to be heart by the PWET Commission, expressing his trust of staff in their review process, but providing initial and proactive review of larger projects. Chair DeBenedet opined that review of certain projects by the PWET Commission, based on the list of criteria, could be incorporated into the formal review process, alerting the Planning Commission and City Council of that Page 8 of 14