2016-06-01_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, June 1, 2016 Page 7 Member Gitzen sought clarification of the RFQ and RFP process in general. 298 Mr. Lloyd reviewed the publication of those documents in various areas for those 299 consultants seeking this specific type of work based on their specialties. Mr. Lloyd 300 clarified that the RFP and RFQ required their own distinct specificity; noting that the 301 consultants working in this area were able with some confidence to develop a timeline 302 and budget proposal. 303 Member Murphy stated he shared Member Daire’s concerns as to the depth of the RFP 304 in hearing different levels of review. Member Murphy noted some of the review seemed 305 quite involved compared to others; and opined that in his review of the draft, it didn’t 306 provide him with a sense of the varying depths among those chapters. 307 Mr. Lloyd advised that the draft format had changed considerable since 2007, and noted 308 revisions in structure and how the overall plan came together would be necessary. Mr. 309 Lloyd advised that overall, it was presumed that the plan would require an update, but if 310 there is a perception that there was a need to dig more deeply into the validity of the 311 previous community visioning, perhaps the update was similar to that done last time 312 versus updating structures and chapters. 313 At the request of Vice Chair Cunningham, Ms. Collins advised that the complexity of the 314 new process definitely made a difference in prices for consultant work; creating the need 315 for staff to seek this input from the Commission and City Council to define the process 316 and potential budget implications. 317 Member Kimble opined it was difficult to identify the need without community 318 engagement first. 319 At the request of Member Murphy, Mr. Lloyd clarified “physical development and 320 community preferences” as part of the RFP language, related to public infrastructure, 321 buildings, and involving a new subdivision for physical development in the community, 322 both residential and commercial. Mr. Lloyd noted this included an update on repairs to 323 the system and additional community build-out since the last update in 2008. 324 Member Murphy sought further clarification as to whether that meant buildings people 325 lived or worked in, or involved all structures (parks and recreational areas as recently 326 bonded for improvement). 327 Discussion ensured regarding defining areas of the RFQ as it related to census data; 328 single-family infill development (residential); age-restricted and/or multi-family housing 329 stock and options; and single-family housing stock added since the last plan update. 330 As noted in Member Boguszewski’s written comments, Member Bull asked where the 331 terms “equity planning,” “health,” and “climate change” terms had come from. 332 Mr. Lloyd advised that those were added based on internal staff discussions, and starting 333 with the general notion of a community physically build out such as Roseville, with few 334 remaining areas to development unless undergoing complete redevelopment, especially 335 once the Twin Lakes area gets more developed. Mr. Lloyd noted that the intent of a 336 community’s comprehensive plan was much more than a tool for the Community 337 Development Department to use in a physical development sense, but provided for ways 338 that community prepared for climate change or equity and community health to look at 339 the community through those lenses as well and beyond just aesthetics or employee 340 bases, but also addressing more intangibles. Mr. Lloyd advised that the Metropolitan 341 Council had been developing resources for communities to identify those assets as well, 342 social, cultural and physical and sensitivities and tools to integrate them into the 343 comprehensive plan. Mr. Lloyd advised that the health aspect had been proposed by the 344 Minnesota Department of Health as a tool to integrate health as a focus, not a specific 345 goal, but to be mindful of in the comprehensive plan; and ways that contribute to good 346 health (e.g. reducing traffic or improving air quality) and to be intentional about those 347 things in the plan. 348