My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2011-05-24_PWETC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Public Works Environment and Transportation Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
2011-05-24_PWETC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/30/2011 9:55:56 AM
Creation date
6/30/2011 9:55:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Public Works Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/24/2011
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.
/
12
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.