2016-05-04_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Page 2 Chair Boguszewski ruled for a paper ballot on this vote, with the result that Member Bull was 48 selected to serve as the Planning Commission representative to the Roseville Ethics 49 Commission; while applauding Member Murphy for his willingness to serve. 50 4. Communications and Recognitions 51 a. From the Public (Public Comment on items not on the agenda) 52 None. 53 b. From the Commission or Staff 54 Chair Boguszewski asked staff for an update on preplanning stages for the 55 comprehensive plan update process. 56 Senior Planner Lloyd noted the overall timeline was several years out yet before due for 57 submission to the Metropolitan Council for their approval. Mr. Lloyd noted there were 58 many options as to the scope of this update, done every ten years, but opined this update 59 would probably fall within the mid-range of those options since the previous visioning 60 process was still relatively current. Mr. Lloyd advised that staff had just begun to discuss 61 in-house the potential recommendations to the City Council prior to their choosing an 62 option to define a scope to seek a consultant via either a Request for Qualifications or 63 Request for Proposals to initiate the process. 64 Mr. Lloyd opined that the city was pretty-well set as far as its physical development, as 65 far as its build-out and guidance of the current comprehensive plan, with the exception of 66 a few corners (e.g. NE corner of County Road B and Cleveland Avenue) that needed 67 closer evaluation for land use guidance and ultimate development or redevelopment, or 68 land use designations that no longer make sense. Other than those properties needing 69 specific attention, Mr. Lloyd advised that the City Council may choose to focus more on 70 policy-oriented content and guiding how the city makes decisions for this update, and 71 how the comprehensive plan might incorporated such principles (e.g. MN Food Charter 72 and making good, quality food available no matter cultural or economic situations). Mr. 73 Lloyd opined that he anticipated this round may use some of those types of policy 74 decisions to establish equity more generally or to supplement was already mostly a good 75 physical development plan, and provide more social development concepts to guide and 76 improve Roseville as a respectful and caring community. Mr. Lloyd noted this may 77 include investigating what that meant and incorporate that into consideration of 78 consultants and costs for budget implications. 79 Mr. Lloyd advised that the intent was for the initial presentation by staff to the City Council 80 next month in more detail and staff’s recommendation for a potential scope to receive 81 City Council and public input before approaching potential consultants. 82 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd reiterated that the cycle for updates of the 83 comprehensive plan was on a ten year cycle, with this one due in 2018. 84 Chair Boguszewski interpreted that the comprehensive plan served as an overarching 85 document for city aspirations and how citizens wanted the city to grow, including both 86 subjective and quantitative aspirations, with the city’s zoning over time brought in line 87 with the goals of the comprehensive plan. 88 Mr. Lloyd noted that the last comprehensive plan iteration update was based on a much 89 broader community visioning process than in the past, and resulted in the city 90 undertaking a zoning code update after adoption of the comprehensive plan. However, 91 give the extent of that work, other than the few cases he previously mentioned, he didn’t 92 see zoning changes on that same scale with this update. 93 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd assured the commission that the 94 Planning Commission’s role would be prominent and central in land use sections of the 95 comprehensive plan, and require considerable public input opportunities and involvement 96 in shaping goals and policies. Mr. Lloyd noted that staff and the City Council would also 97 explore involvement and input from the Community Engagement Commission, as well as 98