2017-01-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 12 Ms. Perdunoted that at the beginning, the team attempted to ask leading questions, not 497 just give them a blank piece of paper, but to ask if they thought their childrenwould be 498 able to or want to live in Roseville after graduating; or asking if those responding wanted 499 to continue living in Roseville. 500 Member Bull opined that it was critical to draw people into it; and if Roseville was a great 501 place now, what would or could it look like in 2040. 502 Member Kimble noted or what would it look like in 2040 if or when all the seniors are 503 gone, now a high proportion of the community’s demographic. 504 Member Murphy noted the importance of planning on medical advancements as part of 505 that comprehensive look. 506 Chair Boguszewski suggested addressing whether or not the city should treat electrical 507 recharging stations the same as gas stations in the future. 508 Ms. Major suggested another question was whether or not people would continue to 509 commute to work in 2040 as they do now. 510 Chair Boguszewski noted the need to make sure solutions developed in the plan update 511 addressed real versus fanciful things.As an example, Chair Boguszewski noted 512 computers were supposed to end the need for paper.Chair Boguszewski stated his 513 concern with spending too much time and effort energizing the community against hopes 514 and not being realistic. 515 Member Murphy agreed, noting the ideas needed to be measurable. 516 Chair Boguszewski agreed, noting his hesitancy in making anything that can’t be 517 measured a part of the process. 518 Member Murphy suggested another thing was how the current plan stacked up with 519 community goals and how to measure that document as part of this update. 520 Ms. Collins noted that the last comprehensive plan update was performed before the 521 Karen community and other demographic diversity showed up; and therefore hadn’t 522 taken that into consideration, while this plan updated needed to identify how best to 523 prepare for and accommodate that diversity. 524 Member Bull noted that demographic trend could also change by 2040. 525 Chair Boguszewski noted the need to address that demographic on two levels: things 526 culturally specific to that community (e.g. right versus wrong), but also not creating a city 527 where people identifiedthemselves as one culture and not welcome among or within 528 other cultures or an “us versus them” mentality.If the issues were not relevant to 529 something that could be resolved by wise city planning, Chair Boguszewski opined that 530 there was no need to incorporate it into the comprehensive plan update. 531 Member Daire agreed with the comment made by Member Kimble, specifically that this 532 public engagement process needed to be sensitive to the reality that those doing the 533 planning now may not be around in another seventeen years (2040).Therefore, from his 534 perspective, Member Daire noted that people migrating to Roseville now and in the 535 future would also be stakeholders by 2040, but may not have yet arrived in the 536 community.Member Daire stated that one observation he’d made was how to include 537 that demographic and their anticipated needs that far out; and suggested that for those 538 involved in this plan update now, it was incumbent upon the group to anticipate what 539 kind of population may be in Roseville in the future.Member Daire opined that they may 540 have vastly different values than those not sitting on the PC, requiring the group to deal 541