2010-10-26_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

review. Chair DeBenedet suggested that such review criteria could be included in ordinance language as part of the process. However, Chair DeBenedet noted the timing constraints and current meeting schedules of the PWET and Planning Commissions and the need to work within those confines or make adjustments, while providing more formal motions in meeting minutes to reflect that review. Mr. Trudgeon noted that most items may not need a decision, but simply provide an information opportunity, since City Engineer Bloom and Public Works Director Schwartz were involved in the review of all cased. Mr. Trudgeon suggested that perhaps a brief summary of specific cases would suffice. Member Vanderwall noted that receipt of such a summary in the PWET Commission meeting packet provided for limited review time or response time from staff or a developer, if a project was flagged for concern or additional information. Member Vanderwall spoke in support of receiving the information via e -mail to provide a better response time, and allow questions or concerns to be e- mailed back to staff so, when discussion occurred at a public meeting, there could be intelligent discussion and adequate responses to potential issues. General discussion included timing of Planning Commission meetings and public notice requirements; potential refinement and adjustment of the initial criteria and process itself, the current development climate based on market conditions in comparison to past activity; and the PWET Commission's desire for additional BMP' s. Mr. Schwartz suggested that he and Mr. Trudgeon work with staff, based on tonight's comments, and then he would return to the PWET Commission with additional information and suggestions. Mr. Trudgeon thanked PWET Commissioners for their enlightening and productive discussion. Chair DeBenedet suggested that the focus and interest of the PWET Commission was on subdivisions, rezoning to a higher density, design and /or performance standards, Comprehensive Plan amendments, Zoning text amendments, or changes leading to a higher use that could have environmental and /or transportation impacts; but probably not Conditional Use applications. 6. Conservation Water Rate Impact Mr. Schwartz reviewed the written information provided by Finance Director Chris Miller dated October 15, 2010 related to water use impacts resulting from the water conservation -based rate structure, in place since January of 2009. In summary, both Mr. Schwartz and Mr. Miller concurred that it was too early to provide a meaningful and accurate analysis of customer usage behaviors and any significant conservation efforts. Mr. Miller had noted in his comments that Roseville residents were already consuming less water than residents in many Page 9 of 14