2017-01-04_PC_Minutes_Approved (3)

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 4, 2017 Page 7 Ms. Major clarified that sometimes that input was sought from those not living in Roseville; or 303 sometimes allowing for two different versions or staffed or using different types or colors on 304 intercept boards to differentiate those responders. 305 Specific to the draft engagement plan spreadsheet, Member Bull asked that given his and others 306 with visual impairments, the consultant use a type color other than the small red print and color in 307 the future. 308 Ms. Major duly noted that request and thanked Member Bull for that reminder going forward. 309 Specific to the website and the role of the Planning Commission, Ms. Major asked for clarification 310 and an interpretation on feedback to allocate a portion of each commission meeting. 311 Member Murphy clarified that his comment was intended for his colleagues that the first Planning 312 Commission meeting of the month include an opportunity for public comments specific to the 313 comprehensive plan update process; and in addition to the general public comment portion of the 314 meeting for non-agenda items that night. Member Murphy opined it might help focus those 315 comments, and also serve the commission’s role in leading the process, and only applicable for 316 nine months in 2017 (February through October) and provide a worthwhile addition for community 317 engagement in addition to the second commission meeting set aside for comprehensive plan 318 discussions. 319 Chair Boguszewski suggested adding Item “c” to the “communications and recognitions” portion 320 of the standing agenda items; and allow the public to be aware that they could address the 321 comprehensive plan at either of those monthly meetings. 322 In addition to encouraging public comment at those meetings, Member Kimble asked if it may 323 also be helpful to publish specific questions or areas of discussion from the tool box for people to 324 think about and to provide comment on those specifics each month versus an open-ended 325 discussion that may not garner as much interest. 326 Depending on where the process was at, Ms. Perdu agreed their firm could at least point people 327 to the website to view a draft of the process up to that point. 328 Chair Boguszewski stated his preference for that idea; however, questioned if that might in turn 329 create some hesitancy for the public if they had a comment on another aspect and therefore not 330 attend. 331 Member Kimble suggested that particular topic could be fashioned as one thing for the public to 332 think about or comment on, but still welcome any general comments related to the 333 comprehensive plan. Member Kimble volunteered to work with staff on specific agenda items and 334 their wording. 335 Mr. Paschke suggested several aspects including the need for the commission to take into 336 consideration their schedule and land use agenda items already on the docket that for a meeting 337 in addition to the comprehensive plan and their desire for additional comment outside listening 338 sessions, open houses or written material, Mr. Paschke suggested that the commission be clear 339 on the intent to receive input on the comprehensive plan, or for the public to seek clarification on 340 any questions they may have; but not specific items for consideration by the commission at that 341 opportunity. 342 Without objection, Chair Boguszewski directed staff to include that agenda item for the next 343 commission meeting with possible revisions at that point and if needed depending on public 344 response. 345 Further discussion ensued regarding Member Murphy’s suggestion to add a short commission 346 preface to the plan with the purpose of drawing City Council attention to a particular section under 347 review, such as Member Kimble’s suggestion for an executive summary; and Member Bull’s 348 suggestion for additional joint meetings under the commission’s structure as a steering committee 349 for the plan update. Member Bull noted that, while the commission served in that role, under the 350 current schedule they didn’t report to the City Council as sponsor of the project until eight months 351 out, a timeline he found not effective integration with the key stakeholder. While the consultant 352