My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2012-07-10_study_session_full
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Plan Commission
>
Minutes
>
2012
>
2012-07-10_study_session_full
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/7/2012 3:19:55 PM
Creation date
12/7/2012 3:19:46 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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 />above historic low levels and that between the 1960s and today there has been a lot of demolition <br />with relatively little of what was demolished being replaced. He stated that unless there is a <br />move towards increasing structured parking, it is hard to see how density in the area can <br />increase; without increasing density in the area, there are other concerns about the future of The <br />Loop and its viability, and also the future of the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Mr. Senturia asked for clarification about the number of units proposed, of the 1,900 units <br />proposed of which 200 are proposed on the north lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Breihan stated that was correct, 210. <br /> <br />Mr. Se <br />with that part of the Plan. <br /> <br />Mr. Breihan stated that was correct, but to be fair, the issue of density is less about meeting <br />residential impact, that the density proposed was a range. He stated that to meet the 1,900 units <br />it would require build-out and a lot of development. He stated it was a range of 1,400 to 1,900 <br />- to 25-year plan. He stated that the issue of parking is <br />really about the ability to facilitate increased density; if the strategy pursued is surface parking, <br />any density will be offset by surface parking because surface parking takes up a lot of space and <br />that is the broader sustainability consideration, not only environmental, but economic as well. <br /> <br />Mr. Senturia asked if surface parking is too - <br /> <br />Mr. Breihan stated it is a low-value use of potentially very high-value land. <br /> <br />Ms. Felton asked if grant funding was in jeopardy if the parking lot is not developed. <br /> <br />Mr. Breihan stated that the Plan has to meet goals. He stated that six livability principles were <br />outlined by HUD and DOT and they took the six general ideas and made them specific to the <br />Plan. He stated that filling those principles is a requirement of the process and that pursuing a <br />surface parking strategy or taking out that component of the Plan would compromise meeting the <br />goals. He stated that this Plan has the potential to allow the City access to other funding such as <br />TIGER V grants. He stated that having a Plan that fills the principles at a high level will count <br />towards getting additional grant funding from the federal government. Mr. Breihan stated that <br />University City was one of 13 recipients for this Community Challenge grant and this was one of <br />the first neighborhood sustainability plans in the nation. He added that there was a lot of <br />enthusiasm and attention from federal departments, it is an important Plan, and they want the <br />Plan to perform at the highest level. <br /> <br />Ms. Felton stated she attended the workshop on August 30 and did not recall any discussion <br />other than attention to the Delmar and Skinker area and nothing was mentioned about the north <br />parking lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Breihan stated that the August 30 meeting was the one where three options were presented, <br />looking at how best to achieve the market potential and where potential development could be <br />tm; <br /> E <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.