pm_070815 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Special Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, August 15, 2007 Page 3 Commissioner Boerigter questioned the goal of such definition and what would be accomplished other than defining various neighborhoods and their proximity to major roadways and connections. Commissioner Gottfried used the example of pathways or sidewalks, of which he was an advocate, recognizing that sometimes they were appropriate and sometimes not. Commissioner Gottfried opined that by defining neighborhoods, this would make defining their appropriateness, and if they were strategic to the neighborhood’s connectivity to amenities (i.e., shopping). Commissioner Doherty concurred with Commissioner Wozniak’s observations that the document was like “motherhood and apple pie,” and very broad. Commissioner Doherty noted that he had been involved in the visioning process as a member of the Steering Committee, and was disappointed that many of the concrete steps identified and submitted by the various subgroups when they defined various goals and strategies were not incorporated into the final report and this document. Commissioner Doherty opined that much of their leadership and tactics seemed to be eliminated, even though that was part of their focus, since the charge to each subgroup had been to focus on broad and long-term issues. Commissioner Doherty further opined that there appeared to be many duplications and conflicting statements within the document. Commissioner Wozniak refocused on his comment regarding an apparent lack of educational focus in the goals; noting that there appeared to be no long-term approach to interactions and innovations possible between elementary-age and college-age schools; and utilizing the city’s access to great educational opportunities as something to build on for the future, and helping to create the quality of life appreciated in the community. Commissioner Gasongo opined the need for additional educational partnerships among schools, local government, and businesses (i.e., Goal 10.C); and noted the many facets of the document and comprehensive review needed. Discussion ensued regarding the City’s future as the “education city;” and impacts of more education of its citizens related to actions of city government people, so there was a better understanding of the “how’s” and “whys” of those actions. Commissioner Boerigter noted Planning Commission’s role in educational impacts through their focused charge in determining appropriate land use and community development and/or redevelopment to ensure housing stock availability for young families with children that would in turn provide a stable tax base for local schools. Commissioner Boerigter noted the need to encourage that role in development of the Comprehensive Plan by encouraging students to support education. Commissioner Gottfried recognized Commissioner Boerigter’s comments; and further addressed the need for the Planning Commission to focus on providing a good mixed balance of commercial and residential development as a priority above attempting to develop roadway systems throughout the community. Commissioner Gottfried expressed concern that Roseville didn’t become a place for people to “Park and Ride” to get into one of the downtowns for work, and then Rosedale an opportunity to shop on their way home; but rather to make it a good place to live by redeveloping what was available to the City. Commissioner Boerigter cautioned that by supporting a transit center at Rosedale, it may actually encourage the very thing Commissioner Gottfried was concerned about.