My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017-02-22_PC_Packet-CompPlan
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2017 Agendas
>
2017-02-22_PC_Packet-CompPlan
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2017 3:02:21 PM
Creation date
8/16/2017 3:02:17 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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
Planning Commission –Comprehensive Plan Update <br />Minutes –Wednesday, January 25, 2017 <br /> <br />Page 12 <br />Member Bull suggested qualifying goals with elements of the topic (e.g. where <br />424 <br />we live, work and play) and what is the quality of life in each of those three <br />425 <br />aspects. <br />426 <br />Chair Boguszewski noted there were a lot oftools that could be adjunct to this <br />427 <br />(e.g. community survey) and some ready-made metrics that prove achievement of <br />428 <br />some of those former goals. <br />429 <br />Member Gitzen suggested then, at that point, the goals be retained or serve as <br />430 <br />suggested by Member Daire as a continued goal. <br />431 <br />Sense of Community <br />432 <br />Ms. Perdunoted many comments were received one way or the other on a <br />433 <br />community center. <br />434 <br />Chair Boguszewski suggested it wasn’t stating that a community center was <br />435 <br />needed, but as a means to achieve a quality of life. <br />436 <br />Mr. Lloydconcurred, or as a way to facilitate quality of life. <br />437 <br />Resident Investment <br />438 <br />Ms. Perdunoted not many comments were made on this topic; opining that <br />439 <br />community survey data could inform community engagement and city <br />440 <br />responsiveness. <br />441 <br />Strong Sense of Community <br />442 <br />Member Bull noted the pros and cons of neighborhood identifiers, opining that he <br />443 <br />was seeing that throughout the city today, whether it was a goal or not. Member <br />444 <br />Bull suggested thinking more about that and potentially revising it, opining that <br />445 <br />sometimes neighborhood identification created stovepipes when the city was <br />446 <br />attempt into build a sense of community rather than disparate groups. <br />447 <br />Member Kimble opined that they were more organic and assets to a community; <br />448 <br />noting that some cities around Roseville had developed communities through <br />449 <br />those neighborhoods. <br />450 <br />Chair Boguszewski suggested “enable” versus “promote;” with Member Kimble <br />451 <br />suggesting language such as “tolerate” versus “promote” <br />452 <br />Member Bull suggested more thought be put into it and how to build <br />453 <br />neighborhoodsinto the sense of the total community instead of either/or. <br />454 <br />With this goal, Member Daire stated that he felt strongly about neighborhood <br />455 <br />organizations as a response mechanism and that they should be encouraged. <br />456 <br />However, Member Daire stated that it struck him that a reason for people to give <br />457 <br />of their time to organize or accomplish something may vary and may be without <br />458 <br />any sense of competitiveness from one neighborhood or another. Member Daire <br />459 <br />opined that it took art and skill to do, and while he remained infavor of it, it <br />460 <br />provided for no immediate appearance of what it takes to develop an organization. <br />461 <br />Using the McCarron’s Lake Neighborhood Association as an example, Member <br />462 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.