pages: PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf, 5
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-10-22 | 5 | Member Mariani believed that this item should be reviewed at every Planning Board meeting. She believed that it was critically important that the Task Force's roles be defined in order for its participation to make sense. Member Ezzy Ashcraft did not have a problem with the Task Force, but it did not address the repeated concern that the Board must be kept apprised of the developments so that their input is relevant. She recalled the Bridgeside development as an example of that involvement not working as well as it could have. Member Lynch noted that this seemed to be a red herring, and did not see the viability of a task force because he believed the structure will ill to begin with. He believed that City staff erred in their suggestion and position that this project should move forward on a particular timeline, and that certain deliverables be made with respect to that timeline. He noted that in the end, the developer would need to determine whether to move forward with the project if it made economic sense. He believed the City should be very careful in approaching this project to ensure that there were no major disappointments. Member Mariani wanted to ensure the task force performed effectively so the Planning Board could make an informed decision at the end of the process. President Cook noted that the Planning Board would like regular updates and communication from the developer. Mr. Thomas noted that the first community workshop would be held on October 24, and suggested that at the next Planning Board meeting, he and President Cook would report back on the proceedings. Member Lynch wished to make it clear that he thought a great deal of Mr. Thomas and the Planning staff. He also trusted the other Commissions, and believed the vetting should take place with the Economic Development Commission with respect to the economic uses on site, and the Transportation Commission. He believed their input was very important as it applied to the development concepts and overall land use. If the consideration of the land use were to vary from the schedule, he hoped that the City Council would adhere to its stated and documented timeline, and then make a decision with respect to moving forward or not. Mr. Thomas advised that there would be tradeoffs and compromises throughout the process. Member Cunningham suggested that the developer not aim for complete buy-in from everyone, and that strong plans often were the result of compromises. Member McNamara suggested that an additional Board member be assigned to the Task Force, citing heavy time commitments which could be shared. President Cook noted that was the original proposal from staff, and that she had discussed the possibility with Mr. Thomas. She would try to be at every meeting if possible, but Page 5 of 11 | PlanningBoard/2007-10-22.pdf |