My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017-02-01_PC_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2017 Agendas
>
2017-02-01_PC_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/7/2017 8:39:12 AM
Creation date
2/7/2017 8:39:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ <br />aźƓǒƷĻƭΑĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲWğƓǒğƩǤЍͲЋЉЊА <br />tğŭĻЊЊ <br />Demographic Data Collection <br />502 <br />Specific to how “seniors” were defined, Ms. Major clarified that this was a tool used for lay people <br />503 <br />who might, for example, staff a “meeting in a box” or man an intercept event. With minimum <br />504 <br />training and only using general terms for them to provide a summary of those in attendance or <br />505 <br />participating, Ms. Major advised that the term was intended not to specify ethnicity or age specific <br />506 <br />group, something their firm attempted to avoid, but simply to provide a general picture. Ms. Major <br />507 <br />noted there was training or a guide that went along with this, but it was a general judgment of <br />508 <br />participants, without diminishing meaningful feedback or dwelling on the subject for those <br />509 <br />interpersonal interactions. <br />510 <br />Spreadsheet Review <br />511 <br />Ms. Major reviewed the spreadsheet by column; with few comments received on whether or not <br />512 <br />the correct engagement targets had been identified; and more comments on the tools used. <br />513 <br />Discussion ensued on the first column and listed engagement tools; with Ms. Major stating how <br />514 <br />important this column was to the process. Discussion areas included: <br />515 <br /> Roseville business community, consisting of owners or workers living elsewhere but <br />516 <br />owning or working in Roseville businesses; and including property owners or landlords for <br />517 <br />multi-tenant housing or commercial buildings beyond single-family homes <br />518 <br /> Need to be explicit in identifying landlords or residential and/or commercial buildings <br />519 <br />occupied by non-owners <br />520 <br /> Outreach included to developer groups as one identified engagement target <br />521 <br /> Include “City of Minneapolis” in residents from adjacent communities as an engagement <br />522 <br />target <br />523 <br /> Include Har Mar Mall in addition to Rosedale Center <br />524 <br /> Capturing “visitors” coming to shop or eat in Roseville, some of whom may also be <br />525 <br />captured with mall visitors as well <br />526 <br /> How to identify remote business leaders coming into Roseville who may consider moving <br />527 <br />to Roseville, except for the lack of aviation recourses <br />528 <br /> “Area Interest groups” identified as any and all groups with an interest in Roseville but not <br />529 <br />necessarily local (e.g. speed skaters using the OVAL; Frisbee golf course leagues; <br />530 <br />economic development groups and employers; non profits or philanthropic groups if <br />531 <br />meaningful, and others to be added if and when identified <br />532 <br />Discussion ensued regarding how extensive the list of associations should be; with Ms. Major <br />533 <br />suggesting removal of “associations network and media’ from this spreadsheet, while it may <br />534 <br />remain in other areas as a target group. <br />535 <br />Further discussion included those media groups, including the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and how <br />536 <br />and when interaction occurs, especially in working with under-reached groups unavailable <br />537 <br />otherwise, and through those networking or associations (e.g. Karen Organization of Minnesota). <br />538 <br />Specific to focus groups and stakeholders, after further discussion, Ms. Major noted that some <br />539 <br />could be combined; but each focus group or stakeholder would require a judgment call depending <br />540 <br />on how their relationship was viewed and how best to obtain interactions, whether a focused <br />541 <br />meeting or one-on-one options. <br />542 <br />At the request of Chair Boguszewski as to how engagement targets are weighted in the process, <br />543 <br />Ms. Major advised that she’d argue that residents and the business community would always rise <br />544 <br />to the top in this type of process; allowing for some more detailed engagement targets to keep the <br />545 <br />process accountable and become more detailed as the process proceeds. <br />546 <br />Specific to capturing information from various focus groups or engagement targets (e.g. adjacent <br />547 <br />communities); Chair Boguszewski noted the trade-off would be in what Roseville was willing to do <br />548 <br />to attract new development or business versus its desire to safeguard what it already had <br />549 <br />available, creating a natural tension. Chair Boguszewski stated that t he city obviously wanted its <br />550 <br />comprehensive plan update to guide and encourage positive development but no to have visitors <br />551 <br />or potential development or redevelopment harm existing neighborhoods or other aspects of the <br />552 <br />community; therefore, he thought weighting was an important consideration. From his <br />553 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.