2016-12-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 10 adding or deleting various plan elements depending on what tools could work best. Ms. 404 Major noted these assumptions were also based on their firm’s experience with the 405 Roseville community during the Parks Master Plan process and other tools they’d seen 406 work in other communities. Ms. Major reiterated that their plan elements were simply 407 suggestions, and clarified that none of the elements were obligatory, but up to the city to 408 implement as they thought best. At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Major 409 confirmed that until the Metropolitan Council approves the comprehensive plan update, 410 everything was subject to change. 411 With Chair Boguszewski noting that Rosefest was listed as an existing event and 412 questioning what was envisioned for the desired input in that instance, since a lot of 413 those attending were not Roseville residents and therefore that input could be seen as 414 not useful; Ms. Major noted that although many may be visitors to Roseville, they were 415 still a potential target for input on the future of the community. However, Chair 416 Boguszewski noted that if the PC decided to eliminate that event, other organizations 417 could be added in its place without impacting the cost of the WSB proposal. 418 Ms. Perdu responded that the community engagement provided a menu of options to 419 accomplish that goal; and WSB had provided this preliminary touch to allow for 420 swapping out various existing organizations or events if indicated and without delving 421 into contingency monies. 422 As an additional organization or event, Chair Boguszewski suggesting adding Northeast 423 Youth & Family Services (NYFS); and asked how the initial list was developed. 424 Ms. Major advised that the draft used a series of resources, including but not limited to 425 web-based research, staff conversations, WSB’s knowledge of the community, and other 426 areas, anticipating a deeper dive into it. Ms. Major reiterated her interest in obtaining the 427 PC input before going into that deeper dive. 428 As far as tonight’s objective and based on staff’s perspective, Ms. Collins noted was to 429 provide a framework for engagement strategies and to intercept ideas or identify key 430 events to hit in addition to the City Council’s talk about “walk abouts” and to determine 431 potential additional costs that may be required at this stage. Ms. Collins advised that the 432 idea was to have WSB take that feedback and then develop a more refined strategy 433 from that input. Ms. Collins advised that any additional costs would need to be approved 434 by the City Council. 435 Therefore, with confirmation by Ms. Major, Chair Boguszewski noted the importance for 436 development of this chart in final format; but flexibility at this point in keeping it the same, 437 making it different, smaller or larger. 438 At this point, Chair Boguszewski asked for significant input from the PC’s counterparts 439 on the CEC. 440 CEC Commissioner Sparby advised that his recommendation based on his review was 441 much broader; especially since there was no mechanism in place to record comments 442 made at these meetings. Since he thought the goal was transparency, Mr. Sparby 443 suggested a summary of the comments from each meeting or event and to make sure 444 that summary was accessible to the public as another engagement strategy whether or 445 not they attended the meeting or event. However, if they did attend, Mr. Sparby opined 446 there was a need for them to know that their input was valuable enough to be recorded. 447 Ms. Major agreed, advising that the standard operating procedure for WSB was to take 448 copious notes at those meetings, and scan any documented input, including 449