2016-12-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 13 more in generalities for guiding future development and facility locations as pointed out 542 by Chair Boguszewski, as well as how to make annual choices and projections for 543 capital improvements and their urgency in that priority planning. While realizing that the 544 finer detail is not addressed in the comprehensive plan and updates to it, Member Daire 545 opined it was still important for those participating in this update and helping to form 546 future planning, to have facility-level thoughts in mind to accommodate that forward 547 thinking and not just deal in generalities. From his personal experience with 548 comprehensive plans, Member Daire opined that if more than three meetings were 549 intended to deal with only generalities, the drop off in attendance would be huge without 550 focusing on stage-setting, then idea-setting, and then a conclusion. 551 Ms. Major agreed that in a huge public meeting format, anything after three meetings 552 would realize a huge drop off in interest and attendance within the community. However, 553 Ms. Major clarified that meetings are not the solution; and to address the need to 554 anticipate the unknowns, their team relied on professional studies, research and 555 demographics from academia to address those trends and anticipate future needs. Ms. 556 Major opined that any plan created by any group today could realistically anticipate 557 everything in the next twenty years. However, from her perspective, Ms. Major stated a 558 good plan, whether comprehensive or otherwise, has to make certain measurable 559 changes, while really providing a good solid decision-making framework with values 560 identified to respond to questions you don’t even know to ask now. In 10-15 years, Ms. 561 Major stated that, for example, a decision about a community center could be based on 562 those key values and factors in Roseville (e.g. values and cost) if fiscal responsibility is a 563 value identified by the community at large and within that framework, all discussions took 564 place. However, Ms. Major admitted that even with all the discussions and information 565 available in today’s world, this effort could still turn out radically wrong and miss what 566 actually happened during or after that 10 – 15-year time period. 567 Member Daire, in his former role with the Minneapolis Planning Department provided 568 some anecdotal information in comparing and categorizing suburbs surrounding 569 Minneapolis and St. Paul (e.g. Edina and Roseville), but didn’t consider succession 570 planning after that. Member Daire stated that he used to be optimistic that things coming 571 down the road could be anticipated, but in truth, they could not; and therefore, by 572 approaching the process with flexibility in that outlook and allowing for different branches 573 in the decision-making tree as suggested by the WSB team, he considered that a wise 574 approach. 575 Ms. Major noted that during WSB’s interview with the City Council, she had stated that 576 community engagement was hard work, and opined if someone told you they had all the 577 answers, it wasn’t true. Thus, Ms. Major opined that conversations such as this provide a 578 great start for the process to get any concerns out on the table. Ms. Major clarified that 579 part of the WSB team’s style was to direct the PC to revisit the process over and over 580 again throughout, even though it may not prove easy work. 581 Member Bull noted that demographic issues played into Member Daire’s comments, with 582 Roseville surrounded by a considerable number of colleges and universities. However, 583 Member Bull stated that he didn’t see them on this current list as a stakeholder, even 584 though Roseville had a part in how they grew and how they understood the value of 585 Roseville and how Roseville understood the value of those students and staff as 586 potential future residents. 587 Ms. Major duly noted the addition to the stakeholder list, reiterating that this list was not 588 intended as a complete list before feedback from the PC. 589