2016-12-07_PC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 18 meeting. As part of his initial review of the schedule and steps to be undertaken, 773 Member Tomlinson opined that creating a “Table of Contents” seemed the most helpful 774 thing to get immediately nailed down, and defining for the public what was going to be 775 looked at in the comprehensive plan update and how much public comment was needed 776 for each of those identified subjects, particularly from the WSB team’s perspective and 777 what they envisioned that community engagement to be; whether topical or by 778 geographic area for public outreach. 779 Ms. Major stated that, generally, she’d suggest topical, but clarified that some 780 geographical areas may have a shared issue or issues. Ms. Major noted that priority 781 topics and chapters had already been identified, were somewhat set, and had already 782 been highlighted as of particular interest to the community or select groups or 783 stakeholders. 784 Member Tomlinson opined that information would be helpful to have when talking about 785 engagement and demographics, including what changes were intended in the plan 786 update. 787 Member Kimble asked the WSB team about how they would format questions for those 788 residents living beyond the realm of comprehensive plans; and how they intended to 789 walk residents through experiential planning (e.g. “What do you want your life to look 790 like?” “How do you want to move through Roseville?” “Do you want to work in the 791 community in which you live?”) Member Kimble opined that few were familiar with that 792 type of place-making review, but if led through such a discussion, may want to voice 793 their opinion from their personal experience if framed as such and not simply issues- 794 based questions. While the current and broader trend may be moving toward the flight to 795 urban living, Member Kimble suggested residents may not know how to think or 796 articulate their desire to walk to work or restaurants, or find an alternative to not do so, 797 they could do so with some assistance. 798 Ms. Major thanked Member Kimble for that perspective, and duly noted that approach as 799 being important in understanding that new perspective. 800 Ms. Perdu advised that was her intent in leading people to look farther ahead than their 801 immediate concerns or issues as they planned form their personal perspectives. 802 In referring to current high school students, Member Tomlinson noted that those 803 students could be mid-year residents in 2040. 804 Under that scenario, Chair Boguszewski suggested approaching those students 805 experientially, such as “How do you envision your life and how does Roseville play into 806 that?” Chair Boguszewski noted the changes from his high school years and his 807 generation and how values had changed and issues involving self-esteem had changed 808 during that period. 809 Ms. Major agreed, noting that by crafting specific questions, such as “Do you want to 810 own a car?” could inform the process considerably. 811 Member Daire referenced a point brought up by CEC Commissioner Tomlinson related 812 to high school students in relationship to “aging in place” and current trends in home- 813 ownership. Member Daire shared his personal experience in sharing an auxiliary 814 dwelling unit in the same building as the next generation of his family, and how that lent 815 a whole new dynamic for each of those generations. Member Daire noted that many 816 students now living in Roseville may want to do so, but not have an ability to do so 817 unless in conjunction with an aging in place process that provided continuity of 818 ownership in a property and a leg up to those children. Member Daire noted that was 819