Loading...
2000-04-13CITY OF BEVERLY Public Meeting Minutes BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE: DATE: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Master Plan Steering Committee April 13, 2000 Joanne Availon, Richard Dinkin, Wendy Frontiero, Linda Goodenough, Scott Houseman, John Murray, Bruce Oveson, Wendy Pearl, Donald Preston, Larry Ralph, William Rodenbaugh, John Thomson, John Young William Delaney, Virginia McGlynn, Maureen Troubetaris, Charles Zarba Tina Cassidy, Planning Director Jeannine Dion Cassidy calls the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. Acceptance of Meeting Minutes Houseman: Motion to accept the meeting minutes dated March 14, 2000, seconded by Dinkin. All members in favor, motion carries. Cassidy introduces Ken Buckland from the Cecil Group. Buckland shares some ideas as to how the Cecil Group Facilitated developing Master Plans in other communities. He states he would like to get members' viewpoints on some of the specifics that the Master Plan Steering Committee would like to see developed during the master plan process. Buckland states Cecil Group used the GIS syslem and developed a database from various sources and from that information, developed some components of a Master Plan. He reviews several maps which detail undeveloped open land, water resources and wetlands, land use history, and protected open space. Buckland reviews maps entitled "Census Tracts and BIock Groups" and "Census Data Summary'' which reflect the number of people per household. There are 2.06 in the downtown area versus 3.22 h: lhe northestern side of Beverly. The state average is 2.55. Buckland states this indicates that there are larger families in the eastern part of the community and there is a significantly lower number of people per household in the downtown area, which suggests a different demographic makeup. Buckland states in each case. There should be different social government suport programs to go along with the kind of commuity you have in different. Master Plan Steering Committee Meeting Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 2 Murray asks if the Census Data Summary could be broken down by ward and precinct. Cassidy asks if you can get finer detail than the block level. Buckland responds that level is the smallest level in which to gather information. Cassidy adds that this is census information and has a limited application and it cannot be broken down specifically by ward and precinct. Dinkin states that he believes people don't identify with wards but they do identify, with neighborhoods. He adds that anything beyond an overlay would have to be justified on a cost benefit basis. It could be costly and time consuming and in terms of the planning process and would provide a relatively small benefit to a small number of people. Young states that he is not sure how relevant information regarding wards would be. He does agree that people identify with neighborhoods but in terms of trying to set a vision for the city as a whole, he does not see the relevance in obtaining information on specific wards. Buckland reviews a sample document that was developed for the community of Weymouth entitled "Draft Summary of Alternatives." The alternatives come from discussion with the community. Buckland states the next step is to take the issues and break them down to specific actions. Dinkin asks for clarification on the process. Buckland responds that there are several meetings throughout the process. There is the initial meeting where the visioning process took place. People were brought together and were asked what they wanted their community to be. The alternatives and objectives are structured from the information heard at the meetings. The "Draft Summary of Alternatives" then goes hack to the public for their response again with supporting information. Houseman states that the City of Beverly conducted a Community Attitude Survey in 1998. which to some degree can provide the basis for developing a preliminary document. Buckland responds that the Master Plan Steering Committee (MPSC) needs to think about the different directions that may be available for the connnunity. He adds that he has had several meetings with the Economic and Community Development Council and the Open Space and Recreation Committee and has different ideas in terms of their particular focus but it is important to look at the Attitude Survey and other supporting community information. Rodenbaugh asks if the MPSC should be starting with a vision. Buckland asks if committee members have read the Goals and Objectives report from 1998. Cassidy states she did not provide copies because it is a hefty document. She agrees it is a pretty intricate document and there were a lot of single issue people that raised about 150 issues over the course of three meetings. The document identifies a lot of the issues and the problems that respondents believed should be discussed and addressed in some way. It was a good beginning and a big part of the visioning process. Cassidy recommends starting with the Goals and Objectives Plan that was done two years ago and start pulling issues out and putting them into each of the catagories (i. e. land use, housing, economic devlopment, etc. ). Master Plan Steering Committee Meeting Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 3 Avallon states that the only way to figure out your vision is to see what your issues are today for your vision tomorrow. Avallon adds the Committee should discuss what the vision is to consider the issues. Buckland asks if it is the general consensus of the Committee to start with a vision statement. Pearl states that she likes the fact that the preliminary document covers a broad range of issues and you can pick and choose from a menu of options. She adds that there might be a discovery process along the way and the Committee might find some alternatives that may be more aggressive, but that are applicable to development, housing, etc. Buckland agrees and adds that there are a number of different ways of getting to the endpoint. Houseman states that he thinks it is almost automatic that there is not going to be one cohesive, unified vision for Beverly. He believes suggesting alternatives make sense because they help articulate what the different alternatives are and serves as a working document. Young states that his concern with the alternatives document is the tendency to look at the alternatives as 'silos' -- not seeing the gray areas. Pearl states she sees the alternatives as building blocks. Dinkin states that there is no single presentation which addresses everyone's learning style. He adds that all visuals presented to a large group need to be accompanied by some form of narrative because it gives you a greater chance of approaching a maximum number of learning styles. As the growth of the product goes more public, you look more closely at what your presentation is. Oveson suggests the Committee not get too bogged down in the vision issue yet because he thinks the Committee might be selling itself short. To come up with a collective vision might become more a hindrance than an asset because it may stop the Committee from thinking about wider possibilities. He adds that if the group is successful, it will be synergistic and the group vision will be better than the individual visions collected. He suggests not getting bogged down in a conclusive vision and push forward with the process and take shots at it along the way. Buckland agrees with Oveson's comment and adds that at the endpoint of the process one of the products will be a vision statement because it is based on what you developed in the process -- what you heard from the community. Dinkin states the Committee members should be aware of their own agendas and be willing to expose them and listen to everyone else's agenda. Buckland reviews what he has heard from MSPC members: 1. Start with vision. Master Plan Steering Committee Meeting Minutes April 13, 2000 Page 4 2. As a group develop the vision, 3. Start with the process of looking at the specific goals and objectives (from the Attitude Survey and Goals and Objectives done previously). Buckland states that three alternatives should come from that process. Preston recommends developing subcommittees to discuss individual categories. Cassidy states that is a great way to pull the information together. There is discussion about organizing the subcommittees. Subcommittee #1 will review housing and land use, subcommittee #2 will review natural resources and open space and subcommittee #3 will review services & facilities and circulation. All subcommittees will review economic development. Committee members agree to schedule interim subcommittee meetings. Cassidy states that in addition to Maureen Troubetaris, the City Council voted to appoint Councilors John Murray and Virginia McGlynn to the Master Plan Steering Committee. Dinkin states he would like to solicit input from populations who historically don't participate -- the renters, young, economically disadvantaged, etc. He would like to know how you solicit --input from those people and convince them that they are invested in this process and it makes a difference to them, their families and their future. Buckland responds that can come from personal outreach (phone calls, knocking on doors, etc.). Cassidy states perhaps the Housing Authority can play a role. Preston recommends developing a website providing community updates. Cassidy recommends including information such as membership of the steering committee, meeting minutes, files/maps and a background statement. Cassidy agrees to provide information and work with Buckland on the issue. Buckland states the website could be up in approximately one week. There is discussion about methods used to reach people (newspaper. website, schools, etc.). Goodenough states the Committee should do more work before it tries to reach an audience. Rodenbaugh recommends that Buckland obtain a copy of Beverly Airport's Master Plan which will be completed by the end of the month. Cassidy states she has a copy of the draft and will provide a copy to Buckland. The meeting is adjourned at 9:05 p.m.