2016-08-03_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 3, 2016 Page 2 consider applicable future park/open space designations as they related to land 49 uses citywide. 50 Member Bull asked that staff keep it fresh in the City Council’s mind that, as a 51 citizen advisory board, the Planning Commission remained very concerned about 52 the consistency and comprehensiveness of the comprehensive plan update and 53 process in general. 54 Mr. Lloyd duly noted that request, opining the City Council also shared that 55 interest. 56 Member Daire noted there were multiple components within the Community 57 Development Department and independent development plans for the future while 58 the Parks & Recreation Commission stood outside that process as related to 59 design standards, land use plans, and policy plans. Member Daire opined that the 60 Planning Commission needed to address the fit of the park system and its Parks 61 Master Plan as a land use and policy instrument alongside the comprehensive 62 plan, unless that role is being served by the City Council rather than the Planning 63 Commission. 64 Based on his understanding, Mr. Lloyd stated the City Council plans for the 65 existing Parks Master Plan to represent park planning for short- and long-term 66 planning. IN terms of the land use element, Mr. Lloyd noted that would be 67 informed by the completed Parks Master Plan effort. 68 If it will be up to the Planning Commission to ensure all chapters were consistent, 69 including infrastructure plans, Member Daire opined they had to take both plans 70 into consideration and make sure both were consistent with each other. 71 Mr. Lloyd agreed that may be largely true, but with infrastructure plans in 72 relationship to land use issues, with Roseville considered a built out community, 73 land use or transportation patterns don’t stand to dramatically change without a 74 fundamental revised vision of the community. Since this scope doesn’t include a 75 different future vision, Mr. Lloyd opined it was safe to assume the process comes 76 up with a plan update, largely similar in overall structure to what it is today. Mr. 77 Lloyd stated he didn’t think this update process would involve m massive changes 78 to either the residential or industrial/commercial comprehensive plan, nor would 79 the overall land use patterns be likely to change to any great extent. Therefore, 80 Mr. Lloyd suggested it would involve a more straightforward process, without 81 significant conflicts; from which the overall consultant, staff and Planning 82 Commission would coordinate and resolve any areas of conflict during the 83 process of reviewing chapters. 84 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Mr. Lloyd reiterated the proposed schedule 85 for receipt of RFP’s; review and recommendation to the City Council (anticipated 86 on September 26, 2016); and contract negotiation. 87 Further discussion included how many firms would be recommended by staff to 88 the City Council depending on the number and quality of responses received; 89 review panel yet to be determined; review by surrounding and overlapping 90 jurisdictions of each community’s comprehensive plan before submission to the 91 Metropolitan Council for review and approval; and each community required to 92 meet the Metropolitan Council’s December 31, 2018 deadline for submission 93 unless seeking and receiving an extension accordingly. 94 Information Request 95 Chair Boguszewski noted additional background information requested at the 96 recent joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission that Interim 97 Community Development Director Collins would be forwarding to commissioners 98 via e-mail. 99