2017-01-04_PC_Minutes_Approved (3)

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 4, 2017 Page 4 Referring to the touch points in the draft schedule, Ms. Perdu noted that the infrastructure update 152 would be coming back to the Planning Commission as the process goes forward. As noted by Ms. 153 Collins, Ms. Perdu confirmed that the entire integrated document, whether or no their firm is 154 writing it, will be provided to the commission to ensure all is consistent as a whole package. 155 Member Kimble opined that the process and draft Table of Contents looked great and as she 156 looked at the transportation chapter, it served as integral to the overall plan and couldn’t be 157 separated. 158 Ms. Perdu noted that the Table of Contents included those elements required by the Metropolitan 159 Council with those chapters integrated into the contents. Ms. Perdu noted it was standard 160 procedure for land use elements of a plan update to begin before infrastructure that would be 161 forthcoming, and providing a head start for the process. 162 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Perdu clarified that land use demographic profiles 163 would for the most part cover the city as a whole, using census tract demographics where there 164 were significant differences (e.g. housing in particular neighborhoods), a more refined look would 165 occur, possibly including a neighborhood study on age and type of housing stock. 166 Chair Boguszewski spoke in support of that information, noting various factors in a neighborhood 167 (e.g. type of housing stock, price and cost) could or could not attract new residents or recent 168 immigrants to the city. Chair Boguszewski opined that many times those smaller communities 169 within the whole want to aggregate for cultural identity, but if choosing to do so, needed to not 170 become under-represented in receipt of any city services in those areas, and thus providing an 171 awareness of the whole, whether specific to the diverse community or the larger community as a 172 whole. Chair Boguszewski emphasized the need to not have a result of segregated pockets that 173 have perceived or actual negatives associated with them. 174 Along that line, Member Daire noted the need to allocate resources accordingly to particular 175 areas of Roseville, perhaps related to the age of infrastructure, but desired to be avoided at all 176 costs where there may be certain clustering of distinct population segments (e.g. elderly, young 177 married, or ethnic groups) may be deprived of certain amenities. When considering equity, 178 Member Daire stated the need to make sure if those groups chose to aggregate, there wasn’t 179 something restricting or minimizing public investment in that area. As an example, Member Daire 180 referenced the temporary health care dwellings that may be candidates for clustering of elderly 181 residents for that type of housing or to allow aging in place while those residents remain 182 contributors to the community and neighborhoods, even though having certain needs that could 183 be addressed by their families or the city. Member Daire stated that he was particularly 184 concerned about equitable distribution of municipal resources using taxpayer monies. 185 Whether related to economic development or redevelopment in general and with the community 186 98% developed, Member Murphy noted the need to address smaller strip malls that may be 187 repurposed and asked where that theme came into play in the Table of Contents. 188 Ms. Perdu stated that she envisioned discussions about redevelopment early on in the land use 189 process, given the very limited greenfield space available in Roseville and obvious evolving uses 190 in the community and economic development in commercial areas. Therefore, Ms. Perdu stated 191 that she anticipated redevelopment to be a big focus in several chapters, including but not 192 exclusively in the housing and neighborhood chapters. As comparisons are made with 193 demographics, Ms. Perdu stated she anticipated there would be an evolution of neighborhoods 194 as well as housing stock. 195 Member Murphy opined that chapter 7.2 (redevelopment and potential mapping) would be a more 196 fitting area. Member Murphy asked staff where the infrastructure updates would be incorporated 197 (e.g. water resources) and where redevelopment was expected that required expenditures and 198 various city structures (e.g. recent License Center location discussions and repurposing of 199 facilities) and other ideas for refreshing similar facilities in the future. 200 Mr. Lloyd advised that the “water resources” and “transportation” chapters would address that, 201 with feedback and planning in those chapters also addressed, including in the overall 202 comprehensive plan’s decision-making rubric in the vision chapter that will serve to guide capital 203