Laserfiche WebLink
CPACDiscussion <br />(8/10/2016) <br />Points of Disappointment withCurrent Plan Draft: <br />“Boiler plate” <br />- standard template that does not reflect unique characteristics of U City <br />- Lacks a deep reflection on the city’s personality, who we are <br />- wasn’t fleshed out appropriately and not responsive to CPAC requests <br />- failed to include the specifics CPAC requested <br /> <br />Lacks description of strengths, weaknesses, trends, threats, etc. <br />e.g. River Des Peres’ threat not adequately addressed <br /> <br />Wards - demographic disparities: does not detail the true nature of U. City and differences in wards <br /> <br />Descriptive, not analytical <br /> <br />Lacks strategy and details, including tactical details of strategies <br /> <br />Rigid concept of end product that was misaligned with CPAC aspirations <br /> <br />Olive Street Plan weak, not a plan, not strategic <br /> <br />Consultants did not seem to understand or hear our residents <br />- e.g. vision statement <br />- Didn’t want to write what we said <br /> <br />Asked for concept of equity to permeate document and it never did <br /> <br />Gaps where we asked for narrative and description that were never delivered <br /> <br />Weak when compared to 2005 plan <br /> <br />Council job will be harder because plan fails to offer guidance <br /> <br />Developers won’t have guidance they need that results in creative, productive development <br /> <br />Citizens impacted without good guidance for planning neighborhoods are at risk for bad deals/projects that are <br />built for political reasons rather than a vision <br /> <br />School District is dependent on density and requires guidance on what community wants. <br /> <br />Ignores financial analysis and economic sustainability <br /> <br />Committees and Commissions advise City Council and need clear guidance <br />