2017-01-04_PC_Minutes_Approved (3)

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 4, 2017 Page 2 and planning staff pertaining to the draft public engagement plan proposed y the consultants. This 47 discussion is intended to yield a recommendation to the City Council regarding how the proposed 48 public engagement plan can be refined, expanded, or contracted to be as successful as possible 49 in drawing robust input from Roseville’s diverse community members as the basis for updates to 50 the comprehensive plan. 51 Mr. Lloyd briefly reviewed last month’s discussion, and noted edits and feedback that had been 52 incorporated into this draft of the spreadsheet for further discussion; and inclusion of a draft Table 53 of Contents as requested by the Commission. Mr. Lloyd stated staff’s anticipation of presenting a 54 revised draft plan to the City Council at their January 23, 2016 meeting based on the 55 Commission’s recommendation after tonight’s expanded discussion. Mr. Lloyd noted that the draft 56 Table of Contents mirrored the structure and content of the existing comprehensive plan, 57 excluding the Economic Development, Public Works, and Parks & Recreation chapters that would 58 not be changed essentially. Mr. Lloyd reminded commissioners that those subheadings and 59 chapters would be handled through a planning process by those departments starting within the 60 next few months working with specific consultants in those areas of expertise. 61 Table of Contents 62 Ms. Perdu briefly summarized work to-date and proposed topics with subheadings under each 63 category, all subject to discussion and change at the leading of the commission. Ms. Perdu 64 advised that this first draft was intended to provide an idea of the intended formatting of the plan 65 per section based on commission feedback at this point, content of the plan and how it relates 66 back to the ideas or vision chapter. Ms. Perdu noted, for instance, in division chapter 2 a 67 decision-making rubric or guiding principles was included to project how the city made decisions 68 that would be consistent with its updated comprehensive plan. In moving through the process, 69 Ms. Perdu advised that she’d provide examples of that process; and over the next few meetings it 70 should become obvious how this update will differ from the current plan; and as infrastructure 71 elements are incorporated by the Public Works Department, with more detail to follow on that and 72 related components. 73 While it may be covered under “economy,” Member Bull noted that even though this is the City of 74 Roseville’s comprehensive plan, how would it coalesce with other communities (e.g. Rice Street 75 corridor) and when bounded by adjacent communities since what they did significantly impacted 76 Roseville as well. Member Bull asked if that was covered or called out elsewhere. 77 Ms. Perdu clarified that the regional context was called out in several spots, as part of 78 Metropolitan Council goals as well, but not specifically addressed in the outline. As the process 79 moves forward, Ms. Perdu noted that “economic development” was certainly one such area 80 where external forces affect what happens in Roseville, including neighborhood character and 81 impacts, housing demand, and population trend aspects in the region as well. Ms. Perdu advised 82 that she would be sure to specifically call out other spots and highlight them in the next iteration. 83 Member Daire asked where data would be included as to how the City of Roseville gained its 84 population, whether from outside the metropolitan area or from other communities within the 85 metropolitan area. 86 Ms. Perdu advised that this demographic, housing and economic data would be included in the 87 “community profile” chapter, with growth trends provided in context of the forecast from the 88 Metropolitan Council. Ms. Perdu offered to call out that data in more detail if desired, but noted 89 there would be different takes on it for several chapters (e.g. housing) including existing and 90 projected needs, migration and commuting patterns and economic development considerations. 91 While it will be touched on in several places, Ms. Perdu agreed it may be good to highlight it as 92 well. 93 At the request of Member Daire, Ms. Perdu confirmed that the Metropolitan Council had several 94 tools to inform the analysis, including GIS metrics for how people live, and travel, that would 95 provide that analysis of internal population circulation, specifically in the “transportation” and 96 “economic development” chapters. At the further request of Member Daire, Ms. Perdu reiterated 97 that the transportation section would be developed under the Public Works realm, using other 98 consultants, later this spring and in conjunction with this commission and city staff. 99