2017-01-04_PC_Minutes_Approved (3)

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 4, 2017 Page 5 improvement projects and be more reflective of what is occurring with public buildings and 204 different types of infrastructure. 205 Interfacing with the school district (e.g. Fairview Community Center) and needed meeting spaces, 206 some of which could be addressed in park structures, Member Murphy noted the need to 207 coordinate the topic of recreation with the school district or in tune with that for joint development 208 opportunities (e.g. former National Guard Armory property) for that property and similar issues. 209 Member Murphy stated his concern was beyond land use. 210 Mr. Lloyd advised that the existing comprehensive plan discussed future land use and was 211 broken into various planning areas, identifying and encapsulating existing sites and conditions 212 within those planning areas that deserved future planning or were already in process. Mr. Lloyd 213 advised that he anticipated something similar will be part of this latest update as well. 214 Chair Boguszewski also noted the need to address safety and security (e.g. fire stations, etc.); 215 particularly recognizing long-range plans of the Police or Fire Departments is applicable. 216 Ms. Perdu clarified that “public safety” is part of the city priorities, and a lens through which 217 everything in the plan was viewed. However, Ms. Perdu noted that allocation for the type or 218 number of stations was beyond their purview, without getting into too much detail in this 219 document, collaboration would occur with public safety departments as part of the broader scope 220 of the plan update. 221 Member Bull noted the need to address climate changes; with Ms. Perdu noting those were 222 included as well as broader resilience issues. 223 At the request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Perdu clarified that chapter 5.7 (aviation) was a 224 requirement of the Metropolitan Council as part of their system statement, whether or not 225 applicable to the City of Roseville, but possibly including consideration of drones and their use 226 and/or enforcement-related issues.. 227 Proposed Comprehensive Plan Schedule (provided as a bench handout) 228 Ms. Perdu presented a draft schedule, intended to remain flexible, but providing an initial 229 proposal for public engagement opportunities that would further evolve based on tonight’s 230 discussion and subsequent City Council determination, perhaps involving significant revision 231 accordingly. 232 Ms. Major advised that the proposed schedule would involve more than just this in-house one 233 developed in conjunction with staff, but become a much more complex version that will feed into 234 it. 235 Ms. Perdu noted additional sequencing will occur as coordination was done with other advisory 236 commissions; with each subsequent Planning Commission meeting talking about the overall 237 goals and what had been found related to each topic up to that point. Ms. Perdu advised that the 238 Commission would likely have homework for their review before those meetings to ensure the 239 best use of their time, and then allow for group editing at the meeting as applicable. At the 240 request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Perdu confirmed that this may include the proposal for 241 additional monthly meeting to be considered later tonight and supplementing regular meetings as 242 needed. 243 Member Bull noted the need for several joint meetings of the Planning Commission and City 244 Council along the way to make sure things were in sync. 245 Related to process, Member Murphy asked for the schedule after City Council adoption of the 246 plan update in December of 2017 and submission to the Metropolitan Council, and whether or not 247 there was the potential for them to return the document for revision during 2018. 248 Ms. Perdu advised that was a definite possibility during the Metropolitan Council’s process, or in 249 the six months before when adjacent communities and other agencies were reviewing the plan 250 update. Ms. Perdu noted this process involved all municipalities and other jurisdictions within the 251 Metropolitan Council’s purview that in turn reviewed the plans of adjacent communities; and may 252 result in potential revisions, addressing omissions, and other areas they deemed needing 253