Frank wrote:
At the Woodland Terrace meetings I attended we were informed that aesthetics, including scale, would not be as important to focus on as things like traffic. We were told that a traffic concerns would have more impact on the City agencies involved and that aesthetics were not really a "valid" thing to complain about. I assume this was true at other neighborhood meetings. This might be why traffic became a major talking point. On the other hand, we were very careful that each of the neighbors speaking at the first PCPC meeting had a different angle on the subject of the hotel so that the Commission would see that there were many concerns, not just traffic. Of course, the minutes, which I know are only supposed to be an outline, don't reflect those.
thanks. what's still not clear is why the woodland terrace people were being 'informed' to focus on traffic before the may 20 pcpc hearing. traffic only became an issue AT that hearing, when the developer cited a traffic study and pcpc asked for a delay to consider it.
how was it that the pcpc did not initiate any request for a traffic study (and prior to may 20 wasn't even considering traffic), and yet, in preparation for pcpc's may 20 hearing the woodland terrace group was being advised to focus on the traffic issue? (and the developer was planning to cite a traffic study)?
who was it that initially decided that traffic was the issue -- the developer? the woodland terrace advisor? it wasn't pcpc and it wasn't the neighbors.
.................. UNIVERSITY*CITOYEN ---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
