My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-06-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-06-28_PWETC_AgendaPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/28/2011 9:08:16 AM
Creation date
6/28/2011 8:53:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
6/28/2011
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.
/
110
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
Chair DeBenedet suggested individual members do their own research prior to the <br />next meeting, for other suburbs, such as the City of Bloomington, MN, as <br />suggested; and to come to the next meeting with specific recommendations on the <br />most favorable components to consider for a Roseville Policy. <br />Mr. Schwartz noted the need to talk about the process as well; how to review it; <br />whether to use Blaine as a template or another policy; how to obtain public <br />feedback and the timing and type of meetings for receipt of public comment. <br />Chair DeBenedet concurred, noting the amount of due diligence that would be <br />required by the Commission in preparing and recommending this policy; and how <br />to avoid getting drawn into specific issues when attempting to develop an overall <br />policy. <br />Ms. Bloom concurred, noting that, while staff was a strong advocate for public <br />participation, they were attempting to look at this policy holistically, not with <br />passion for specific neighborhoods or concerns. Ms. Bloom noted that the public <br />needed something to react to and on which to provide comment to avoid <br />difficulties. <br />Member Stenlund suggested consideration be given to two (2) separate <br />rating /point systems: one for new construction and one for existing situations, <br />with two (2) separate scales to determine benefit/cost and incorporating ratings <br />for retrofits or new designs. <br />Mr. Schwartz noted that the Comprehensive Plan and the Imagine Roseville 2025 <br />processes both included considerations for livable neighborhoods and safety <br />issues. <br />Ms. Bloom noted that, as the outer suburbs continued to grow, the traffic situation <br />for Roseville would only continue to grow; and with that increased traffic, <br />consideration would need to be given for building capacity as well as maintaining <br />capacity, with traffic pushing into neighborhoods. <br />Mr. Schwartz concurred, noting that staff had just received word from the <br />Metropolitan Council that the City's Comprehensive Plan may need amendment <br />based on the Met Council's most recent system statement related to <br />transportation, and managing versus expansion, and related impacts to <br />neighborhoods. <br />Further discussion on model policies included layout of information and how <br />effective each component was in the overall picture; and the credibility of the <br />conclusions. <br />Page 10 of 12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.