2017-01-04_PC_Agenda_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular Planning Commission Meeting Draft Minutes – Wednesday, December 7, 2016 Page 20 forums populated by the same group(s)of residents and lack of reality of some of those 866 posts and comments; how to keep those outside of a particular issue or neighborhood 867 from attempting to control an issue through repeated posts; and assurances by Ms. 868 Major that they were used to managing that feedback by putting it through various 869 lenses if found to be repetitive by certain groups. 870 Ms. Collins noted her observations from the recent election and early voting process 871 indicating a significant increase in involvement by people in rental units; and their 872 involvement in local and civic pride issues, not just voting at a presidential level.Ms. 873 Collins noted how impressed she had been with that turnout, and as such, wanted to be 874 sure creative ways were included to make sure residents in rental units were also heard. 875 In the initial WSB proposal, Member Bull opined that there seemed to be a heavy 876 concentration (3 sessions) for the ECFE population group. 877 Ms. Perduresponded that this was a method found successful in other communities, 878 providing a diverse and easy opportunity for reaching young families, but only one idea 879 with the number of sessions also easily interchanged with other tools. 880 Ms. Major agreed, notingthat certain assumptions were made to present their proposal 881 to the City Council, using some of those tools found successful in other communities or 882 within similar situations. 883 Chair Boguszewski noted, as an example, ECFE was an existing gathering place for 884 those the team wanted to reach, whether or not that particular organization was used, 885 but providing that type of mechanism to reach that demographic interest and lifestyle; 886 with Ms. Major agreeing with that summary. 887 Member Kimble asked if the next list would include a process for how best to interface or 888 how to make adjustments to one interest group listed in the proposal that had been 889 intended as a starting point. 890 Ms. Major summarized how she saw the process, including an updated version of the list 891 withadditional columns and a few other changes based on tonight’s discussion that she 892 had noted; but otherwise with limited edits for the PC to add their thoughts and ideas. 893 Then in January, Ms. Major proposed taking that input from the PC and CEC, yet without 894 a “Table of Contents” at that point even while recognizing the value of that introduction; 895 at which point the whole team could dial the process down to the right number of 896 meetings, their type and scope; but still allowing flexibility and changes to the plan from 897 then on as well. 898 Given the amount of ground covered tonight, Member Murphy asked if the PC was at a 899 point to say definitely what it wanted to accomplish in January. 900 As mentioned by Ms. Major, Chair Boguszewski suggested saying as a default at this 901 point that the PC would meet the first Wednesday of the month, with an additional 902 meeting scheduled (e.g. third Wednesday of each month) for 2017 and the duration of 903 the comprehensive plan update or as a standing agenda item specific to the 904 comprehensiveplan update with varying sub-bullets at each meeting, such as an update 905 to the list as the only item specific to the update for that January meeting. 906 Member Murphy suggested that if a second meeting was scheduled monthly, it only be 907 specific to the comprehensive plan update and no other land use or text amendment 908 issues. 909