pm_061206 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, December 06, 2006 Page 6 d. PLANNING FILE 3692 CONTINUATION of the Roseville Comprehensive Plan Update Process – Review of technical update schedule with various City Commissions. Mr. Stark provided a Bench Handout entitled, “Request for Planning commission Action,” dated December 6, 2006 considering a resolution supporting Comprehensive Plan funding; attached hereto and made a part thereof . Mr. Stark noted his original hesitation in the usefulness of the visioning process as it related to the Comprehensive Plan Update; however, noted that he was pleasantly surprised by the product coming out of the visioning process and how it could be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan update, and the public participation to-date. Mr. Stark recommended that the Planning Commission support staff’s recommendation to the City Council at their December 18, 2006 meeting for use of a minimum of $60,000 from Community Development Department Reserve Funds for hiring outside consultants for the Comprehensive Plan Update. Considerable discussion ensued among staff and commissioners related to the timing of the Comprehensive Plan Update; technical versus policy foci and meeting Metropolitan Council requirements; the newly-revised Metropolitan Council deadline of December 31, 2008, rather than July 31, 2008; the need for community input on the two vital Comprehensive Plan chapters addressing system statements for (1) land use and (2) economic development, which both require extensive work; recognition of staff’s knowledge and skills in light of current workloads and their lack of resources and time for Comprehensive Plan work; the under-funded community visioning process and extensive efforts of subcommittees and their commitment to the process to ensure a good document and end product; and need to frame the direction for the City for the foreseeable future. Commissioners questioned whether the proposed $60,000 was sufficient to accomplish the work needed on the Comprehensive Plan sections; whether other options (i.e., staff and/or urban planning assistance from an educational institution) were worth considering versus hiring a consultant with critical expertise in Comprehensive Plan development; and commission concerns with staff attempting to change their workload to facilitate the Comprehensive Plan Update, and therefore reduce their receptiveness and diminish customer service commitment to the community and public needing land use assistance. Mr. Stark noted that, even with outside assistance, staff would still be providing 20-30 manpower hours per week to work with the consultant, as the process would be a cooperative one. Commissioners again discussed whether the $60,000 allotment proposed by staff was sufficient; with Mr. Stark advising that, in consulting with peers from other cities, this was indeed a low number, but would enable the process to move forward in a meaningful way. At the request of commissioners, Mr. Stark reviewed the process for requesting qualifications, selecting firms to provide requests for proposals, and selection of a firm to work with to provide a good end product. Further discussion included which sections needed revision and which needed to be drafted from scratch; staff’s perception that it would be easier to start from scratch for the majority of the update; need and benefit of authentic public participation and how a consultant needs to frame or assist with meaningful public participation from residents and businesses; and time and resources available to focus on technical updates. Mr. Stark opined that a Comprehensive Plan is the best tool to guide a community to what it ought to be, and expressed his enthusiasm for moving down this road. Mr. Stark reviewed the