My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0613
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0613
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/1/2016 2:38:29 PM
Creation date
6/24/2016 3:46:10 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, June 13, 2016 <br />Page 22 <br />Specific to the parks, open space and recreation chapter, Ms. Collins advised that <br />the Park Master Plan and Park Renewal Program docuinents would be integrated <br />into the comprehensive plan update. <br />Senior Planner Bryan Lloyd reviewed the implementation chapter as detailed in <br />the RCA; as well as additional considerations as outlined in lines 119-195 of the <br />RCA. <br />Ms. Collins noted Planning Commission input included in lines 196 — 216 of the <br />RCA. <br />If the City Council had any additional considerations, Ms. Collins asked that they <br />direct that information to staff. For those with little or no familiarity with the <br />comprehensive plan or updates each decade, Ms. Collins referred them to the <br />Metropolitan Council's local community handbook, opining it was a wonderful <br />resource. <br />Ms. Collins reviewed the draft timeline for City Council consideration, noting it <br />was mirrored against the 2007-08 plan upd'ate tiineline, and addressed in lines 48 <br />— 71 of the RCA. Ms. Collins advised that the significant time between Novem- <br />ber 2017 and Deceinber 31, 2018 was to allow review by local jurisdictions, <br />agencies and the Metropolitan Council. <br />Prior to preparing an RFP, Ms. Collins advised that staff was seelcing specific <br />City Council guidance on their preferred scope of the update and preferred op- <br />tion(s) for public engagement strategies. The recommended choices outlined by <br />staff were as follows: <br />Options for Scope of Update <br />a) Technical update — system statements issued by the Metropolitan Council; <br />OR <br />b) Technical and content update; OR <br />c) Technical update and fiill re-write/re-vision of the comprehensive plan. <br />Options for Enga�ement Strategv <br />a) Engagement strategy developed with consultant, staff and various adviso- <br />ry commissions; OR <br />b) Consultant suggested engagement process with Community Engageinent <br />Commission (CEC) representation in review of proposals; OR <br />c) A steering committee process similar to that used for the 2008 update. <br />Scope <br />Based on her familiarity with the Comprehensive Plan, Councilmember McGehee <br />stated she found the current plan pretty good. From her perspective, Coun- <br />cilmember McGehee opined the only piece missing from the engagement strategy <br />used last time was that the process didn't go deep enough into small groups or <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.