pm_060906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for September 6, 2006http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0906.htm stipulated, but offered to forward the question to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their comment and advice to the Commission; specific to whether the fee could be used for additional buffering along the trailhead. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion carried. MOTION [8.2]: Member Bakeman moved, seconded by Member Doherty, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the VACATION of the existing SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT, the relocation of the existing sanitary sewer line, and the establishment of a new utility easement over the relocated sanitary sewer line. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion carried. MOTION [8.3]: Member Doherty moved, seconded by Member Wozniak, to RECOMMEND APPROVAL of the VACATION of the undeveloped portion of CHANDLER AVENUE, adjacent to Lot 14, Block 4, Rolling Green. Ayes: 5 Nays: 0 Motion carried. Chair Traynor noted that the Planning Case would come before the City Council at their September 25, 2006 regular meeting. c.Planning File 3692: Continuation -- Introduction to Roseville Comprehensive Plan Update Process Chair Traynor continued the Public Hearing of the Roseville Comprehensive Plan Update Process. Chair Traynor questioned the community visioning process and his support for further revisions to the technical updates of the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion included the proposed work plan and whether it was realistic; various components needing updating and review; technical updates; input from other advisory commissions; broader community support and public hearing process; and lack of activity to date. Further discussion included the dual and/or separate track of the technical updates and the community visioning process and their impacts to the Comprehensive Plan Update. It was Commission consensus that the technical and system portions of the Update needed to be initiated prior to the completion of the community visioning process, in order to meet the working timeframe. Community Development Director John Stark addressed staff discussions and their discernment about the degree of technicality; revisions discussed to-date; those revisions more technical in nature requiring a more technical requirements. Mr. Stark advised that he had found, upon arriving in Roseville, that there was no money budgeted for the Comprehensive Plan Update, and in speaking with other Department Heads, they had no funds designated for their portions of the update either. Mr. Stark further advised that, in his discussions with Interim City Manager Chris Miller, Chris concurred that the Comprehensive Plan was a community document, with no department ownership, and in final budget recommendations to the City Council, staff intended to request an additional levy increase to accommodate costs associated with the Comprehensive Plan Update. Additional discussion included the need to get the Systems Plan updates to the Metropolitan Council by the 2008 deadline; with additional updates to follow; staff resources and commitment for a meaningful public process by 2008; and the extent of the technical updates and annual updates required. Mr. Stark advised that, from a staff perspective, he was pushing for sooner rather than later; and opined that is was appropriate to go down the first road, while recognizing the need to retain the visioning track. Mr. Stark observed that the existing Comprehensive Plan was, in his opinion, very cumbersome, and could be much more direct and simplistic, and in the long run, save valuable time and money. Mr. Stark further opined that the City not staff time to do it well; and noted the availability of consultants who have extensive Comprehensive Plan experience; while recognizing the limited financial resources for outsourcing the process. 8 of 102/6/2007 11.15