2016-12-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 14 Member Kimble also expressed her interest in drawing in generational groups (e.g. 590 millenials and beyond); and in addressing benchmarks and measurements as noted in 591 the WSB proposal in the areas of resilience. 592 Member Bull asked what use of data analytics WSB used in today’s world as everything 593 was tracked, including how residents shop, attend school, and other things that address 594 the current and future model of residents. Member Daire asked if WSB drafted a model 595 of what the current population will look like in twenty years. 596 Ms. Perdu advised that the team started with those basic things easiest to obtain (e.g. 597 form the Metropolitan Council’s data cache), with community engagement then informing 598 the next questions needed to be asked; as well as economic development and business 599 analysis tools and market areas for that and housing. However, Ms. Perdu advised that it 600 depended on what the general overview indicated and that first round of community 601 engagement. Regarding drafting population model comparisons, Ms. Perdu stated those 602 projections were made as much as possible, noting it was easy to look at an age range 603 long-term, but harder to look at racial mark-up and other considerations. 604 Member Bull suggested setting up different models as a base for comparing different 605 diverse groups represented and their movement into and out of the community; and then 606 applying technology according to changes in that model. 607 Ms. Perdu suggested having those deeper discussions with the PC at a later meeting 608 and how those projections were modeled; however, she noted tonight’s intended focus 609 was on community engagement. 610 Member Bull opined that there was a need to accurately track Roseville residents and 611 visitors. 612 Ms. Major advised that the WSB team tracked demographics using a variety of available 613 tools, including intercept boards. At the request of Member Murphy, Ms. Major defined 614 “intercept boards” as a large foam core board with graphics and few words displayed 615 using dots or Post-it notes to ask stakeholders their preferences based on those 616 graphics. Ms. Major referenced one recently used for potential uses in a park, with 617 people “dot” voting and/or providing suggestions. Ms. Major noted that it was intended 618 as a simplistic tool, and not as a deep dive; but similar to an online survey tool to raise 619 awareness and possibilities by and with the public. Once that tool is created, Ms. Major 620 noted that it could be taken off-site to multiple locations, without staffing, to be dropped 621 off and picked up with additional input and then scanned into a spread sheet with a 622 record of notes made by the community. 623 As noted by Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Major agreed that on certain topics, that higher 624 level of review as all that was needed for the comprehensive plan update. 625 For example, Chair Boguszewski noted that if three years from now, a specific park 626 development was proposed, a deeper dive and more involvement by the neighborhood 627 would be undertaken, based on general guidance from the comprehensive plan. 628 Ms. Major agreed with that scenario; noting a community engagement tool could come in 629 many formats (e.g. meetings in a box) and be professional or non-professional; while 630 also becoming an online tool afterwards. Specific to demographics, Ms. Major advised 631 that the statistics were not scientifically valid, nor were they intended to be, but involved 632 using best practices for collecting the information and for each and all engagement tool. 633 Chair Boguszewski reiterated his preference that in the end all input utilized by the PC 634 and City Council include one or two representatives of the PC, with the full PC notified of 635 those meetings, their format, and location to make sure they remained involved. Chair 636