2017-01-04_PC_Minutes_Approved (3)

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 4, 2017 Page 6 change. Ms. Perdu confirmed that it was possible there may be a need for the consultants and 254 staff to return to the city to address significant changes; however, noted that staff will continue 255 monitoring the plan and process to provide updates and additional information on the process to 256 the Planning Commission and City Council as needed. 257 Community Engagement Plan 258 Ms. Major noted that Mr. Lloyd had reviewed the process to-date and based on past discussions, 259 they had made some modifications to the plan, including addition of the Mounds View School 260 District, experiential questions for outreach; and other modifications from staff and the Planning 261 Commission, resulting in this version for further feedback from the body. 262 In addition, Ms. Major stated that she had some clarification questions for the body about their 263 comments; and while not seeing is as fruitful to go through the document verbatim, noted that 264 before taking the next step, tonight that review involve groupings and using their memorandum as 265 a reference point, talk about those areas at some length and make additional modifications based 266 on those discussions. Ms. Major stated that some of those questions include various groups and 267 how the commission envisioned outreach to them and what t information was being sought, and 268 what type of participation was desired and how to get that into the final proposal for the 269 engagement portion of the plan update. 270 Using the memorandum from their firm dated December 8, 2016, and the spreadsheet outlining a 271 draft engagement plan, targets and tools, Ms. Major led discussions with the commission. 272 In the memorandum, third bullet point, (page 2) for “elevator speech,” Member Kimble clarified 273 that was her comment and had been intended by her as a shorter mission statement via a phrase 274 or one sentence that the community could more easily understand as the overarching purpose 275 versus an entire paragraph as part of the branding and community engagement process. Member 276 Kimble suggested the title and mission could be one in the same. 277 Ms. Major noted that dovetailed with the next part of the process for branding or a more user-278 friendly version. Ms. Major noted that was always a challenge in shortening mission statements, 279 that they remain translatable and self-evident. However, Ms. Major advised that she would work 280 with staff on that. 281 Chair Boguszewski opined that words may be vague from the commission’s perspective, but 282 should be something the community could grasp and get across the message that the intent of 283 the plan was to guide how the city develops, and be cascading with the onus on individuals to dig 284 deeper depending on their level of interest. 285 Ms. Major noted the Imagine Roseville past branding to be cognizant of that as well. 286 Regarding commission questions about the online survey tool and how and when results would 287 be made public, Ms. Major responded that their firm attempted to provide occasional updates 288 summarizing feedback throughout the process, and then posting final results on the website. 289 However, Ms. Major advised that they always proceeded with caution in posting that non-290 statistically valid survey information to avoid people getting hung up on suppositions. At the 291 request of Member Murphy, Ms. Major advised that typically they did one interim update and one 292 final after a month or two, often using them to spur more input from the public. Specific to the 293 length of intercepts and at the request of Chair Boguszewski, Ms. Major advised that it depended 294 the particular event (e.g. farmers market or library setting) as well as their time of day and 295 whether the materials remained on site for a while or if it was staffed; with the overall goal to 296 provide an opportunity for people to provide their feedback, with some opportunities being less 297 intimidating if not staffed and simply available. 298 Chair Boguszewski opined that while some opportunities (e.g. Rosefest, Fourth of July, etc.) may 299 garner great input, it was important to be aware that a significant portion of those participants may 300 not necessarily live in Roseville; thereby suggesting caution about collecting random input from 301 those who may not have a stake in the information being provided to the city. 302