2017-01-04_PC_Minutes_Approved (3)

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, January 4, 2017 Page 8 and staff would have some integration with both the commission and city council, Member Bull 353 opined that the commission needed both formal and informal discussion on the process to-date 354 and any other comments from the city council on how the process was going or additional 355 involvement or direction needed. 356 Without objection, Chair Boguszewski directed staff to look into joint sessions or work groups with 357 the city council, at a minimum represented by one or more of the three identified commission 358 representatives. 359 Mr. Lloyd noted that staff intended periodically bringing some of the work in progress items to the 360 city council so they could see the direction things were going and provide their feedback at that 361 time. However, Mr. Lloyd noted that would be dependant on the city council schedule and other 362 agenda items, but still intended as part of the interface process itself. 363 Ms. Perdu noted points identified in the draft schedule for meetings with the city council and their 364 involvement early on, starting with the Planning Commission and then the consultant and city 365 council to provide those check-in points. Ms. Perdu noted that the actual check-ins were up for 366 discussion with staff as to how commission meeting format would be done, whether formal 367 meetings or work sessions; but as a consultant, advised that they would want to soon meet with 368 the city council to make sure they were on the right track before moving on, knowing that would 369 form the foundation for the remainder of their work on the plan update. 370 Specific to previous questions and written reports that would accompany the draft comprehensive 371 plan, Ms. Major advised that those could be jointly done, but the intent was for the commission or 372 steering committee to write a preface or cover letter to the report involving a gracious 373 introduction, highlighting what they had found to be the most important aspects for the process. 374 Member Bull emphasized his concern with the lack of interaction between the commission and 375 city council during the timeframe until twelve months out; and reiterated the need for more touch 376 points along the way; duly noted by Ms. Major, and including Community Engagement 377 Commission (CEC) feedback. 378 Potential Event Locations 379 Discussion ensued regarding locations, with the following suggestions: 380  Library: specify Roseville Branch of the Ramsey County Library 381  Consideration to other library locations if and when applicable (e.g. school libraries) 382  Consideration of school cafeterias as applicable, including Roseville and Mounds View 383 School Districts, most likely at high schools, but possibly involving older elementary input 384 opportunities 385  Inclusion of Ramsey Area High School and Fairview Alternative High School students, 386 and involving input from school administrators and seeking their community engagement 387 and feedback as well, perhaps through approaching the superintendents and then in turn 388 their respective principles for each and to identify the best location at each facility 389  Involving other school groups (e.g. gifted and talented student groups) 390  Consider Har Mar Mall, in addition to Rosedale Center, for input from a smaller, heavily-391 utilized community group 392  Consideration Fairview Community Center as another engagement tool and the various 393 demographics from the community using the facility 394  Consider involving area college students who may become future Roseville residents or 395 residents of nearby communities (e.g. University of Northwestern) 396  Combining some of the smaller groups into one meeting or engagement tool option 397 Ms. Major advised that she would take all of these suggestions into consideration and along with 398 previously-established priorities, use her judgment on those to recommend including. Ms. Major 399 reiterated that the draft list was not intended to be all-inclusive, but a general list, thus the “post 400 secondary” target identified at this point on the spreadsheet intended to become more specific 401 based on tonight’s feedback and allowing the commission another check at that time. 402