2013-01-28 Study Actuary & Parkview Gardens

Home Browse Search

Dr. Hoal briefly presented the summary of the Parkview Gardens’ planning process and with a focus on the changes. He noted as a reminder the project conception was a partnership for a sustainable community’s grant. Dr. Hoal stated it was very important to remember the plan was a long range plan, twenty years out. The present plan was built on two previous studies, “The Parkview Gardens Parks and Open Space Plan” which the City Council approved and “The Delmar Loop Retail Study”. He said it had five fundamental phases, four of which were formed in a community outreach plan. From there a series of options were derived which lead to a draft plan, to a final plan, and subsequently was amended. The decision working framework came from working with the community at large, secondly with the Parkview Planning partners put together by the City as advisory and finally to the decision makers. Dr. Hoal said what was important as planners, was to facilitate a community process where there was a series where everyone tended to agree with 90% of the work and the other 10% were the controversial issues. He noted the planners do not make policies. They had four public meetings and six partnership meetings. The methodology they used was very transparent and everything was presented. Dr. Hoal stated they continued to have community outreach and every phase completed was ultimately approved by the City. The Plan Commission decided to keep the conversation open when land owners around parking lot #4 voiced objection. The Plan Commission removed the development on parking lot #4 and agreed that there must be parking needs that will be addressed by a separate study, which will be done and then tied in at the comprehensive plan process. Ms. Carr said the issue was the City had been asked to pay an additional $40,000 to amend the plan. She noted that on the bottom of page of the draft plan she had, was “the draft document is subject to revision including graphics and appearance” and mention of additional cost. Additionally on stake holder interviews, she noted only one of four property owners; Mr. Edwards was chosen as a stakeholder. She stated that Mr. Edwards said that the parking lot was never discussed with him. Ms. Carr said that Bruce Mills had no stake in University City but also saw where he did not respond nor was he interviewed, but knew that he work with Dr. Hoal on Maryland Walk. She asked why the stakeholders list was as it was, heavy on government and heavy on Wash U but not involving landowners around parking lot #4. Ms. Carr noted that according to the report, 26 stakeholders were to be interviewed as part of the planning process. Business and property owners were organized into eleven small focus groups and were critical in shaping the project team’s understanding of the Parkview Gardens neighborhood and were included in the analysis of the study areas. Public engagement in parallel with regular meetings with the planning partners, four separate public workshops with neighborhood residents were conducted along with the public at large. Ms. Carr noted that Mr. Solomon said at the meeting the parking lot was being sold as a community vision and that he did not think it was an accurate perception and was not for building on the parking lot. Ms. Carr assumed the planners identified some consensus issues by the stakeholders’ interviews. Mr. Solomon stated at the meeting, the condominiums existing on the location, he saw as politically controversial and would get pushed back from the business community and residents, but it was still put in the plan. Ms. Carr stated that she felt the mistake was made by the planners having gone forward with the plan and not consulting other landowners and wonder why the City had to pay an additional $40,000. Dr. Hoal stated that all the issues were brought to the Plan Commission and were very explicit about the difficult options available. They received the commission’s authorization 5