2012-06-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to the parking lot. He stated that he received notice of the Plan, but asked that if he chose not to be involved, should the punishment be that you lost your parking lot without notice. Mr. Halpert stated that regarding communication of the Plan, it was sent, but not about the proposed change to the parking lot. He stated it did not make sense to dwell on the issue of public notice because people are here now to express their issues. He added that the Plan had not been voted on and others will be speaking tonight and comments will be noted. He apologized that he was not made aware of changes to the parking lot. Ms. Locke stated she was not aware of the history of the parking lot and asked Mr. Wald if there were any changes to the parking lot that would be helpful to Loop merchants. Mr. Wald stated that the perception is that the surface lot is safer than the garage and he would like to see repaving and restriping of the lot. Plan Commission. Mr. Stone summarized his ownership history in The Loop. He stated that developers worked with the City to provide the surface parking lot to attract visitors. He stated that the redevelopment agreement referred to a redevelopment plan adopted in 1966 and that the urban renewal plan may be modified at any time by the Land Clearance Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) provided that any modification must be agreed upon by any redevelopers of such property or their successors and interests, and he is both. He added that Dan Wald bought subject to that redevelopment plan as did other owners that did infill development there. He added that the City was looking for partners and he was a good partner. He stated that nobody came and talked to them and he needed to be involved. He stated that what he did not like about the Plan was that it created more parking demand. Mr. Stone added that he understood why dense development is desired and declining population would make the City vulnerable, but putting an asset at risk would not benefit the City. He stated that the surface parking lot has always been about visitors, not to support residential development in another neighborhood, and that if the businesses are able to survive he would like to see an increase in the size of the lot. He referenced the Washington University project and how they are creating their own parking underground. He stated that developers and redevelopers have had to fight this for 12 years because this property is viewed as a shovel-ready property for residential development. He stated that the Central West End would die for a surface parking lot like this and that structured parking is inferior to surface parking. Mr. Stone stated that to speed up the attraction for residential development, the surface parking lot should be expanded to the north and to the east. He stated that he was at an LSBD meeting and was told it was just a vision and was designed to meet sustainable guidelines and federal standards. He concluded that his recommendation is to eliminate any reference to the development of the parking lot. Ms. Locke stated, for the purpose of disclosure, that she worked with Mr. Stone previously on a building when she worked for Mastercard. Ms. Locked asked about the id and thought there was a rule against perpetuity. tm; E