Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission –Comprehensive Plan Update <br />Minutes –Wednesday, January 25, 2017 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br />Ms. Perduclarified that the script was designed with clear instructions for this <br />230 <br />self-explanatory option and reactions then provided back to staff. <br />231 <br />With several suggestions provided by individual commissioners, Ms. Perduasked <br />232 <br />thatthey submit ideas to staff for various groups to target from their perspective. <br />233 <br />Ms. Perdureviewed the “MySidewalk” online option with four major updates <br />234 <br />planned as a platform for the city’s website and coinciding with City Council <br />235 <br />updates, linked to the city’s comprehensive plan website. <br />236 <br />With this plan just having been approved by the City Council earlier this week, <br />237 <br />Ms. Perduadvised that as scheduling began, it would be coming back to the <br />238 <br />commission for their review. <br />239 <br />With the amount of information being gathered, Member Gitzen asked how the <br />240 <br />results would be received. <br />241 <br />Ms. Perduresponded that her intent was, once a particular group of meetings was <br />242 <br />completed and after the initial public kick-off meeting; the results would be <br />243 <br />compiled and brought back to the Planning Commission, again after each group <br />244 <br />of events or activities. <br />245 <br />Chair Boguszewski noted that one of the benefits of having three liaisons was for <br />246 <br />them to help disseminate and have ears at the sessions on those thins key to the <br />247 <br />Planning Commission versus just the chatter. While realizing that the critical mass <br />248 <br />of information or documentation would be forthcoming, Chair Boguszewski noted <br />249 <br />that the liaisons could let the Commission know their general impression of what <br />250 <br />was discussed. <br />251 <br />Member Gitzen suggested that the information gathering would be pertinent to the <br />252 <br />Special Planning Commission meetings and align monthly subjects with <br />253 <br />information gathered to-date. <br />254 <br />Ms. Perduduly noted that suggestion. <br />255 <br />At the request of Member Daire, Ms. Perduadvised that results and summaries <br />256 <br />would first pass through staff from the consultant and then on to the Commission <br />257 <br />with their meeting packets; and then published on the website so those attending <br />258 <br />the meetings and events could know they had been heard and how their input <br />259 <br />would be used and if any ideas came up that would not be incorporated into the <br />260 <br />plan update and why they were or were not used and how and why that happened, <br />261 <br />establishing a two-way communication effort. <br />262 <br />Member Daire noted that he had no strong desire to receive the raw information, <br />263 <br />opining that staff did a good job filtering information for the Commission. <br />264 <br />When doing visioning and focus groups, Ms. Perduadvised that everything would <br />265 <br />be documented and a summary published. If the Commission preferred to drill <br />266 <br />down into those individual comments at any point, Ms. Perduadvised that a copy <br />267 <br />would be retained. <br />268 <br /> <br />