2016-06-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 1, 2016 Page 6 formatting elements needed for the final document. Ms. Collins noted that the foundation 245 may be there, but there was a need to determine to what scale the update would be 246 rewritten. 247 Member Daire asked if that review was necessary prior to and informing issuing the RFP 248 and RFP. 249 Mr. Lloyd responded that it was not entirely necessary, if there was a collective feeling 250 that overall the goals and vision for Roseville and its future development or what the 251 future community should look like were addressed in the current plan’s overarching 252 aspirations. If so, Mr. Lloyd advised that the comprehensive plan update process could 253 be initiated, and each chapter and its respective goals reviewed accordingly. However, if 254 the starting point indicated that those overarching aspirations for the community were no 255 longer current, Mr. Lloyd advised that there may be a need for that review first to inform 256 the plan update, and would be dependent on that level of process. 257 Member Daire noted that he was not involved in the 2008 process, and therefore was 258 trying to define his role in the process: whether that involved crafting the RFQ and/or RFP 259 process or defining the scope of the plan. Member Daire stated part of his confusion was 260 in the striking of the Public Works section related to transportation; and his wonder as to 261 how to integrate that into the comprehensive plan if not included in the rewrite, and how 262 that could possibly include meaningful input from stakeholders as part of the process. 263 Member Daire opined that the comprehensive plan was not a stand-alone document 264 related to zoning or development, but was involved in defining the city’s capital 265 improvement and operational budgets, and required the financial aspect for 266 implementation built into the process. 267 Vice Chair Cunningham asked staff to provide an example of how previous Planning 268 Commissions integrated with the City Council during the comprehensive plan process. 269 Mr. Lloyd noted that was also a question of Member Boguszewski. Mr. Lloyd clarified that 270 neither the Community Development Department nor the Planning Commission would be 271 working on all sections of the plan. Mr. Lloyd noted that the Public Works Departments, 272 as well as other departments and city functions, would be working with their own 273 consultants and their specialties (e.g. transportation, utilities, stormwater management, 274 environmental, etc.) in a parallel process to work out those details, which would 275 subsequently be incorporated into the overall comprehensive plan process. 276 At the request of Member Daire, Ms. Collins advised that the various consultants would 277 work together with staff, the City Council, advisory commissions, community 278 stakeholders, and others on individual pieces, with the City Council being the ultimate 279 authority; with the Planning Commission incorporating their elements into that process 280 and the final document. Ms. Collins noted that the comprehensive plan consultant would 281 guide and manage that process as each parallel group with their specific expertise 282 worked with appropriate departments to vet each section with a stakeholder group for 283 integration into the larger plan. Ms. Collins stated that the goal was to have the same 284 level of public participation and engagement with different facilitators. 285 Member Bull noted the involvement of a steering committee for the last update that 286 oversaw the overall process, and eventually brought forward for public hearing and 287 approval. 288 Ms. Collins noted that engagement model was also under review and was being vetted, 289 based on the City Council and CEC’s feedback. 290 Member Kimble noted the consultant could also provide suggestions for the overall 291 process, with confirmation of that statement by Ms. Collins. Member Kimble noted that it 292 had been ten years or more since the prior community visioning had been done, and 293 involving a large amount of time and many changes, with new technology available now. 294 Therefore, Member Kimble opined that given that time lapse, it seemed the 295 comprehensive plan warranted a serious look to make sure that community visioning was 296 still valid. 297