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
ATTACHMENT B <br />Major Issues Raised by Members of <br />Clarifications / Facts <br />the Loop Special Business District <br /> The public engagement process, include <br />meeting notifications exceeded the minimum <br />requirement of a public hearing and included <br />signs posted in the neighborhood, mass <br />mailings to study area addresses, project <br />website. <br /> Announcements were made about the Plan, <br />Lack of notifications regarding public meetings and plan process, and meetings at several Loop <br />recommended use of the parking lot Special Business District meetings <br /> Participation from LSBD members was <br />limited <br /> Notifications and updates were not specific to <br />select plan components, as it is important to <br />present full picture of a cohesive and <br />coordinated plan with inter-related <br />components <br /> Urban Renewal Plan expired in 1986 <br /> Any future development on the parking lot <br />Previous commitments and promises; urban <br />would require legal due diligence by a <br />renewal plan, redevelopment plans, etc.; would go <br />developer. If restrictions exist, would be <br />against previous plans <br />found at the appropriate time. <br /> Scope of consultant’s work did not include full <br />title search of each parcel in the study area. <br /> Draft plan proposes more parking in entire <br />study area <br /> Existing parking in study area is 1,430 <br />Insufficient parking in The Loop; there is not enough <br />spaces/draft plan proposed 2,793 spaces <br />parking in Loop now and Plan proposes less <br /> Exsiting parking on Parking Lot #4 is about <br />parking <br />400 spaces (many are restricted for private <br />use)/draft plan proposed over 700 public <br />spaces <br /> The LSBD did not provide data to <br />substantiate this assertion. <br /> See crime data (slide comparing crime data <br />of last 5 years between municipal garage and <br />Parking lot safety and/or lack of safety in structured surface lot behind Cicero’s. More incidents <br />parking; people prefer to park in a lot rather than a on surface lot) <br />garage <br /> Informal survey reveals mixed feelings on <br />safety <br /> Other areas/business districts are adding <br />garages, e.g. Central West End, Clayton, <br />Brentwood. <br />Development of parking lot is not the community <br /> Planning process with public engagement – <br />vision; comments were made that it should not be <br />majority of participants supported <br />developed <br />development of the lot <br />WÒä <br /> <br />t/zz{·Ò7ä{;zt5;¦©·;·E/Òz·ä5;Ý;¦;·LE©·z <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.