Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission –Comprehensive Plan Update <br />Minutes –Wednesday, January 25, 2017 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br />While this community engagement plan had been approved by the City Council, <br />74 <br />Ms. Perduencouraged further comments on detail from the Planning Commission <br />75 <br />tonight or funneled through their liaisons. <br />76 <br />As a vision-impaired person, Member Bull reiterated his frustration with the small <br />77 <br />print on the table and asked that it be made more readable. <br />78 <br />Mr. Lloyd apologized for his omission, and advised that he would correct that on <br />79 <br />future iterations. <br />80 <br />At the suggestion of Member Murphy to make it more readable electronically, <br />81 <br />Mr. Lloyd advised that the document was already available on line. <br />82 <br />Chair Boguszewski noted that, from his recollection, Member Bull had <br />83 <br />specifically asked at the last meeting that the document be more readable, <br />84 <br />pointing out his ocular difficulties, and asked that staff do so. <br />85 <br />Ms. Perdureviewed the updated community engagement plan, including various <br />86 <br />topic-based focus groups, cluster meeting during and possibly after businesshours <br />87 <br />depending on participant availability with targeted invitations, even though all <br />88 <br />were open to the public. <br />89 <br />Chair Boguszewski asked that those specific meeting dates and times were <br />90 <br />provided to Planning Commission liaisons: Member Kimble, Gitzen and Bull to <br />91 <br />allow for their participation. <br />92 <br />Member Bull asked for elaboration on the education component of the <br />93 <br />comprehensive plan. <br />94 <br />Ms. Perduclarified t hat it wasn’t a chapter of the comprehensive plan per se, but <br />95 <br />instead targeted educational institutions to receive their input. Ms. Perdunoted <br />96 <br />that this included school districts as well as post-secondary institutions. <br />97 <br />Member Bull noted that while participants may be from that environment, the <br />98 <br />topic may be something else. <br />99 <br />Ms. Perduagreed with that statement, advising it was intentional to see what their <br />100 <br />issues were, and to find out any upcoming projects or plans that they have that <br />101 <br />may influence the comprehensive plan; as well as their overall impressions of the <br />102 <br />city. Ms. Perdunoted that many of these groups would be gathered by interest <br />103 <br />with each of their foci different. <br />104 <br />Member Bull opined that focus groups look more like topical groups versus <br />105 <br />education and therefore, he didn’t understand how education would it in. <br />106 <br />Chair Boguszewski clarified that it didn’t fit in as a concept, but as an educational <br />107 <br />community how the comprehensive plan could help. <br />108 <br />Ms. Perduagreed, noting they both informed the other. <br />109 <br />Ms. Perdureviewed the four interagency meetings and their topics (housing/land <br />110 <br />use, economics, transportation/infrastructure, and water/open space) that included <br />111 <br /> <br />