2012-07-10_study_session_full - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

built in the neighborhood. He stated that at that time, they did not have all the numbers worked out and were making the assumption that a building with a centralized parking structure shared between residents and The Loop would work, but did not calculate parking spaces, size, massing, etc. He stated that all that came at the November meeting and they went through a detailed description with analysis of parking including various recommendations of how to increase parking and increase access to parking. He stated this took many slides of the presentation and they did get into details about that at the November meeting. Mr. Lai stated, regarding the question about federal agencies, University City was one of 13 communities who received the grant and that DOT and HUD officials came from Washington D.C. and Kansas City to attend meetings and they like what is being done; they have had high remarks for what they have seen and that is part of the reason why we were able to get the EPA to come for providing technical assistance, the sustainable land use code audit. He stated that if there were other funding grants, they would look at a garage that could be close to the trolley and what kind of impact it had to The Loop area. He stated he recognized the current users of the parking lot, but also that 50 percent of those who come to The Loop do not drive there. He stated that we have to think about the future; the federal government wants to showcase lessons learned and show it to the rest of the country and the Plan is highly regarded. Ms. Riganti stated it was unknown if removing a portion of the Plan would jeopardize existing funding, but to remove a portion of the plan would have some financial implications to the planning process since it would require portions of the Plan to be reformulated by the consultants. She stated that it comes with a cost and has not been built into the budget. She stated it was unsure where that funding source would come from. Ms. Riganti stated that the impact on the ability to secure funding in the future is unknown. She stated we are trying to demonstrate success with this project and it has been held in high regard from the beginning. She stated that regarding the parking garage and other funding sources, there are some state programs available for construction of parking garages and assistance to secure funding for parking garages if a plan is already in place, so it is helpful. She added that this is a vision and if there were a live proposal, details would be worked out at that time at the appropriate level. Ms. Greening stated that the problem is that several Loop businesses are angry. She asked if they had heard the entire presentation. She added that it is hard to move forward without consensus and consensus is needed and she does not want the entire plan thrown away and that was threatened two weeks ago. She asked how to move forward with a vision for 20 to 25 years. She stated that the perception from business owners is that next month there will be a parking garage there and businesses would move out in two months or go out of business. She stated that maybe there should be another meeting in which we ask every business owner and have this same presentation and asked what the Commissioners thought. Ms. Felton asked about the compromise that was mentioned. Ms. Riganti stated that staff and the consultants met with a representative of The Loop, a large property owner along with their partners and discussed a compromise and thought a compromise was reached that was palatable to those who had objected to the current concept for the property. She stated there may still be something we could try to present again, maybe presented in a tm; E