2016-06-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 1, 2016 Page 5 Engagement Commission (CEC) to define the public engagement and participation 191 process, above and beyond formal public hearings. Mr. Lloyd noted that part of these 192 preliminary discussions would involve the extent of public engagement at the front end, 193 including the nature of desired changes in the comprehensive plan process and whether 194 the current goals are still relevant, and to address those goals already achieved and no 195 long needed in the comprehensive plan’s guidance. 196 Member Daire asked if, upon examination of those policies and whether or not current 197 goals had been achieved or not, would that dictate a complete redo versus an update. 198 Mr. Lloyd advised that would depend on the depth to which that conversation was 199 directed. On one hand, Mr. Lloyd noted there was the larger version of an update versus 200 a rewrite scenario; evaluation of what indicated a more open-ended update versus a 201 complete rewrite; and determining whether those goals still mattered to the community or 202 whether or not some of those goals had been achieved already. 203 In his reading of the proposal, Member Daire stated the need to recognize the 204 community’s demographic changes, both ethnically and from an age standpoint. Since 205 those appear to be new elements, Member Daire noted the need to seek input on those 206 new elements; and asked if that meant determining if those elements complied with the 207 2008 comprehensive plan or if the plan needed revising to accommodate more diversity. 208 Member Daire opined it sounded like a specific outreach for CEC involvement to address 209 those growing ethnic segments in the community, which in turn to him sounded like a 210 rerun of the community visioning process incorporating that input on ethnicity and age 211 demographics, allowing for modification of those previous comprehensive plan 212 statements to be more topical, inclusive and respond to citizens in a way that’s positive 213 and proactive as well. In that case, Member Daire stated that sounded to him like more 214 than an update. 215 Mr. Lloyd stated that an update could simply engage those demographic groups newer to 216 the community, or more represented than at the last process, with expectations that any 217 update included those voices. Mr. Lloyd clarified that any update involved more than 218 simply numeric’s to provide a baseline for the Metropolitan Council, but beyond that it 219 was a matter of scale. Mr. Lloyd reiterated that the draft RFQ and RFP included in 220 tonight’s meeting materials were not intended as the right scale, just a direction perceived 221 by staff to-date, and intended as an update, not a rewrite or for a purely numerical effort. 222 Mr. Lloyd noted that this is all part of that conversation: how fundamental do we want to 223 get in our evaluation of community goals. 224 Member Daire stated he didn’t have a personal sense for what kind of demographic 225 changes and scale for them, beyond the 2010 census and forecasts by an arm of the 226 Metropolitan Council and/or State of MN. Specific to the ethnic composition of Roseville, 227 Member Daire opined, if there were no significant changes however defined, perhaps it 228 was less critical to spend a lot of time reaching out. However, if there were a lot of 229 significant increases in the Karen or Somali communities as indicated by Member 230 Boguszewski’s written comments, Member Daire opined that it seemed just including that 231 outreach process was a major undertaking even beyond providing that input in the 232 comprehensive plan update and its various elements. 233 Ms. Collins further clarified Mr. Lloyd’s interpretation of an “update.” Ms. Collins noted 234 that this went beyond updating statistics of making minor amendments, but involved the 235 potential rewrite of entire sections in the existing comprehensive plan. For example, Ms. 236 Collins noted that the current plan referenced the City’s Housing & Redevelopment 237 Authority (HRA), which no longer existed; with that entire section reworked for the current 238 Roseville Economic Development Authority (REDA) instead. Ms. Collins noted that each 239 section would require a review and receive group input for any changes, whether 240 rewriting, tweaking or leaving as is. However, Ms. Collins further clarified that the 241 question was how much was done ahead of time and how much was done after a team 242 (e.g. consultant(s), community stakeholders, or staff) was established. Ms. Collins stated 243 there was no doubt that each section would need to be reviewed; with some design and 244