My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-07-25
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Plan Commission
>
Minutes
>
2012
>
2012-07-25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2012 3:05:48 PM
Creation date
12/7/2012 3:05:45 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Ms. Lewis asked where we needed to be. <br /> <br />Mr. Lai stated that progressive reports had to be prepared for the federal government and had to <br />le to <br />get through the Plan Commission and City Council; we would have to let them know. <br /> <br />Ms. Moran stated, if she understood correctly, the August timeframe was imposed by staff and <br />that the grant actually went through 2014. She stated that, given there was always some holdup <br /> <br /> <br />Mr. Lai stated he did not want the Plan Commission to feel rushed or have to rush to consensus. <br />th the funding agencies. He added that, on the <br />other side, once the Plan was adopted, the City would be in a better position to apply for <br />implementation grants. He stated that the City missed the Tiger IV opportunity, but there may be <br />Tiger V and other grants available to make improvements to streets or sidewalks in the <br />neighborhood. <br /> <br />Ms. Riganti stated that when various funding agencies evaluated grant applications, they look at <br />past performance and ability to meet deadlines established internally or externally. She stated <br />we want to be realistic with the timeframe. She stated the timeframe was initially self-imposed <br />and the deadlines and work plan had been exceeded, but wanted to communicate with a realistic <br />timeframe for eventual adoption. <br /> <br />Ms. Riganti prepared draft language shown on the projector screen to the Plan Commission. <br /> <br />The Plan Commission reviewed the draft language. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />The Plan Commission agreed that the combination was fine. <br /> <br />Ms. Riganti stated she was also preparing some additional language from the Plan Commission <br />to direct or provide input on the parking study; about what the Plan Commission would like to <br />see. <br /> <br />Mr. Halpert stated he thought the issue of security in the revised paragraph would be a hot-button <br />issue among the public and the consultants should note that. <br /> <br />Ms. Locke stated it was a very specific topic, garage parking vs. surface parking. <br /> <br />Ms. Riganti revised the language. <br /> <br />Mr. Senturia stated this was a recommendation to City Council rather than to the consultant. <br /> <br />Ms. Riganti stated that City Council made a request that an RFQ be prepared; Public Works <br />issued the RFQ. She stated it was a recommendation to the Department of Public Works and <br />tm; <br /> <br /> E <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.