Laserfiche WebLink
wĻŭǒƌğƩtƌğƓƓźƓŭ/ƚƒƒźƭƭźƚƓaĻĻƷźƓŭ <br />aźƓǒƷĻƭΑ‘ĻķƓĻƭķğǤͲWğƓǒğƩǤЍͲЋЉЊА <br />tğŭĻА <br />Ms. Major clarified that sometimes that input was sought from those not living in Roseville; or <br />303 <br />sometimes allowing for two different versions or staffed or using different types or colors on <br />304 <br />intercept boards to differentiate those responders. <br />305 <br />Specific to the draft engagement plan spreadsheet, Member Bull asked that given his and others <br />306 <br />with visual impairments, the consultant use a type color other than the small red print and color in <br />307 <br />the future. <br />308 <br />Ms. Major duly noted that request and thanked Member Bull for that reminder going forward. <br />309 <br />Specific to the website and the role of the Planning Commission, Ms. Major asked for clarification <br />310 <br />and an interpretation on feedback to allocate a portion of each commission meeting. <br />311 <br />Member Murphy clarified that his comment was intended for his colleagues that the first Planning <br />312 <br />Commission meeting of the month include an opportunity for public comments specific to the <br />313 <br />comprehensive plan update process; and in addition to the general public comment portion of the <br />314 <br />meeting for non-agenda items that night. Member Murphy opined it might help focus those <br />315 <br />comments, and also serve the commission’s role in leading the process, and only applicable for <br />316 <br />nine months in 2017 (February through October) and provide a worthwhile addition for community <br />317 <br />engagement in addition to the second commission meeting set aside for comprehensive plan <br />318 <br />discussions. <br />319 <br />Chair Boguszewski suggested adding Item “c” to the “communications and recognitions” portion <br />320 <br />of the standing agenda items; and allow the public to be aware that they could address the <br />321 <br />comprehensive plan at either of those monthly meetings. <br />322 <br />In addition to encouraging public comment at those meetings, Member Kimble asked if it may <br />323 <br />also be helpful to publish specific questions or areas of discussion from the tool box for people to <br />324 <br />think about and to provide comment on those specifics each month versus an open-ended <br />325 <br />discussion that may not garner as much interest. <br />326 <br />Depending on where the process was at, Ms. Purdu agreed their firm could at least point people <br />327 <br />to the website to view a draft of the process up to that point. <br />328 <br />Chair Boguszewski stated his preference for that idea; however, questioned if that might in turn <br />329 <br />create some hesitancy for the public if they had a comment on another aspect and therefore not <br />330 <br />attend. <br />331 <br />Member Kimble suggested that particular topic could be fashioned as one thing for the public to <br />332 <br />think about or comment on, but still welcome any general comments related to the <br />333 <br />comprehensive plan. Member Kimble volunteered to work with staff on specific agenda items and <br />334 <br />their wording. <br />335 <br />Mr. Paschke suggested several aspects including the need for the commission to take into <br />336 <br />consideration their schedule and land use agenda items already on the docket that for a meeting <br />337 <br />in addition to the comprehensive plan and their desire for additional comment outside listening <br />338 <br />sessions, open houses or written material, Mr. Paschke suggested that the commission be clear <br />339 <br />on the intent to receive input on the comprehensive plan, or for the public to seek clarification on <br />340 <br />any questions they may have; but not specific items for consideration by the commission at that <br />341 <br />opportunity. <br />342 <br />Without objection, Chair Boguszewski directed staff to include that agenda item for the next <br />343 <br />commission meeting with possible revisions at that point and if needed depending on public <br />344 <br />response. <br />345 <br />Further discussion ensued regarding Member Murphy’s suggestion to add a short commission <br />346 <br />preface to the plan with the purpose of drawing City Council attention to a particular section under <br />347 <br />review, such as Member Kimble’s suggestion for an executive summary; and Member Bull’s <br />348 <br />suggestion for additional joint meetings under the commission’s structure as a steering committee <br />349 <br />for the plan update. Member Bull noted that, while the commission served in that role, under the <br />350 <br />current schedule they didn’t report to the City Council as sponsor of the project until eight months <br />351 <br />out, a timeline he found not effective integration with the key stakeholder. While the consultant <br />352 <br /> <br />