2017-01-04_PC_Minutes_Approved (3)

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 4, 2017 Page 11 Demographic Data Collection 502 Specific to how “seniors” were defined, Ms. Major clarified that this was a tool used for lay people 503 who might, for example, staff a “meeting in a box” or man an intercept event. With minimum 504 training and only using general terms for them to provide a summary of those in attendance or 505 participating, Ms. Major advised that the term was intended not to specify ethnicity or age specific 506 group, something their firm attempted to avoid, but simply to provide a general picture. Ms. Major 507 noted there was training or a guide that went along with this, but it was a general judgment of 508 participants, without diminishing meaningful feedback or dwelling on the subject for those 509 interpersonal interactions. 510 Spreadsheet Review 511 Ms. Major reviewed the spreadsheet by column; with few comments received on whether or not 512 the correct engagement targets had been identified; and more comments on the tools used. 513 Discussion ensued on the first column and listed engagement tools; with Ms. Major stating how 514 important this column was to the process. Discussion areas included: 515  Roseville business community, consisting of owners or workers living elsewhere but 516 owning or working in Roseville businesses; and including property owners or landlords for 517 multi-tenant housing or commercial buildings beyond single-family homes 518  Need to be explicit in identifying landlords or residential and/or commercial buildings 519 occupied by non-owners 520  Outreach included to developer groups as one identified engagement target 521  Include “City of Minneapolis” in residents from adjacent communities as an engagement 522 target 523  Include Har Mar Mall in addition to Rosedale Center 524  Capturing “visitors” coming to shop or eat in Roseville, some of whom may also be 525 captured with mall visitors as well 526  How to identify remote business leaders coming into Roseville who may consider moving 527 to Roseville, except for the lack of aviation recourses 528  “Area Interest groups” identified as any and all groups with an interest in Roseville but not 529 necessarily local (e.g. speed skaters using the OVAL; Frisbee golf course leagues; 530 economic development groups and employers; non profits or philanthropic groups if 531 meaningful, and others to be added if and when identified 532 Discussion ensued regarding how extensive the list of associations should be; with Ms. Major 533 suggesting removal of “associations network and media’ from this spreadsheet, while it may 534 remain in other areas as a target group. 535 Further discussion included those media groups, including the St. Paul Pioneer Press, and how 536 and when interaction occurs, especially in working with under-reached groups unavailable 537 otherwise, and through those networking or associations (e.g. Karen Organization of Minnesota). 538 Specific to focus groups and stakeholders, after further discussion, Ms. Major noted that some 539 could be combined; but each focus group or stakeholder would require a judgment call depending 540 on how their relationship was viewed and how best to obtain interactions, whether a focused 541 meeting or one-on-one options. 542 At the request of Chair Boguszewski as to how engagement targets are weighted in the process, 543 Ms. Major advised that she’d argue that residents and the business community would always rise 544 to the top in this type of process; allowing for some more detailed engagement targets to keep the 545 process accountable and become more detailed as the process proceeds. 546 Specific to capturing information from various focus groups or engagement targets (e.g. adjacent 547 communities); Chair Boguszewski noted the trade-off would be in what Roseville was willing to do 548 to attract new development or business versus its desire to safeguard what it already had 549 available, creating a natural tension. Chair Boguszewski stated that t he city obviously wanted its 550 comprehensive plan update to guide and encourage positive development but no to have visitors 551 or potential development or redevelopment harm existing neighborhoods or other aspects of the 552 community; therefore, he thought weighting was an important consideration. From his 553