pm_070109 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, July 01, 2009 Page 3 Discussion among Commissioners and staff included positives and negatives in using PUD’s, while deviating from standard requirements, but allowing the City to impose additional conditions and restrictions; and making sure the revised code is what the community and the City Council expect; with all parties willing to adopt and implement the goals with a consistent design; potential misunderstanding of changing needs and markets creating more use of PUD’s and other implications in a first-ring suburb such as Roseville that was substantially developed, and now experiencing redevelopment in many ways and at many different sites (whether housing and/or retail). Commissioner Wozniak questioned the role of the Planning Commission in formulating the RFP; and the level of engagement between the chosen consultant and the Commission. Commissioner Best suggested the need for the Commission’s and City Council’s aspiration, goals, and ideals put into the RFP, and allowing for creation of a workable model, factoring in some of the remaining concerns in maintaining control of development and/or redevelopment. Staff indicated that the RFP would include general concerns voiced by the Commission and City Council; general legal guidance required; whether it was desired to have a traditional Euclidian code, a form-based code, or some combination of both; with Commissioners indicating to-date that they were open to form-based code in some applicable places, and a more traditional code in other areas. Staff noted that they would incorporate comments from tonight’s meeting into the RFP, with the Commission able to review and further revise the document at its August 2009 meeting for recommendation to the City Council for approval prior to it being sent out. Commissioner Boerigter requested that the RFP itself clearly state for the consultant’s understanding that the Commission wants to ensure that a clear dialogue and regular engagement between the Commission and City Council is in place throughout the process; and that such time and expense in additional meetings be built into their proposal. Mr. Paschke advised that staff concurs completely with that request; and noted that staff intended to provide periodic updates with the consultant, the Commission, and City Council to keep consultant costs down; and that would also be built into the RFP. Mr. Paschke further advised that, at this point, it was unclear as to how often the consultant would appear before the Commission with proposals, noting that some of that would be determined by cost; but that there would definitely be a role and communication. Mr. Paschke suggested it may be prudent to have a Planning Commission subcommittee, and that such coordination and interaction expectations would be included in the RFP, and components of specific proposals would be the consultants’ process for achieving those goals. Commissioner Boerigter questioned if staff had any ideas on how to achieve public input, whether through public hearings before the Planning Commission or if other public or informational meetings were being considered, beyond those public comments already received as part of the Imagine Roseville 2025 community visioning process and the Comprehensive Plan Update process. Commissioner Boerigter opined that meetings held outside the realm of the Planning Commission and/or other Advisory Commissions, as applicable, may not provide meaningful information to the Commission, but simply increase consultant costs. Commissioner Boerigter spoke in full support of public engagement, but suggested that it be promoted as part of the Public Hearing process as opposed to additional meetings held throughout the community that only added to costs. Commissioner Wozniak opined that, while it may be the same people showing up for comment as heard from in previous processes, the statement was made repeatedly throughout the Comprehensive Plan document for engaging and involving citizens and it was prudent for the City to attempt to do so. Commissioner Wozniak suggested that a vendor with experience in Internet work could take full advantage of the City’s technology as a resource, rather than public meetings; with the information available on the City’s website for public consumption and to solicit input. Mr. Paschke advised that staff had not yet considered preferences, but that costs would be factored in; and that part of the purpose of the RFP and consideration of specific consultants was how they responded to meeting those generalized or specific concepts to meet the City’s