My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Plan_Commission_minutes_2013-09-25_approved
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Plan Commission
>
Minutes
>
2013
>
Plan_Commission_minutes_2013-09-25_approved
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/9/2013 10:16:19 AM
Creation date
12/9/2013 10:16:18 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Mr. Halpert proposed additional language to be incorporated into the Resolution on page two <br />after the first Whereas on that page to address the concerns about private <br />subdivisions. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Ms. Locke asked Mr. Wilson about budgeting and implementation and what the process would <br />be for a project like this to secure funding. She asked if development of a budget was something <br />that occurred at the beginning. <br /> <br />Mr. Wilson addressed her question and stated the scope of the original Master Plan did not have <br />detailed cost information for individual streets but average costs. He discussed projects such as <br />this one and previous grants that had been applied for. <br /> <br />Ms. Riganti addressed the concern about cost and budgeting. She stated that in a long-range <br />planning document, concepts and visions and recommendations were put in place to develop <br />priorities and once there was a request for a project, it was evaluated based on priority, and at <br />that time it was determined if the project would move forward and then determine a cost <br />estimate. In a long-range planning document, time and energy was not typically spent <br />developing cost estimates because they might be out of date once a project was proposed and <br />would possibly need further refinement. She stated that cost estimates were included in grant <br />applications and to do so in a long-range planning document might not be beneficial. <br /> <br />Staff stated the revised language as proposed by Mr. Halpert to be incorporated in page two, to <br /> <br /> <br />, the University City Plan Commission recognizes that the Revised Draft Bicycle and <br />Pedestrian Master plan impacts certain private subdivisions within the City of University City, <br />Missouri, and <br /> <br />Whereas, the University City Plan Commission finds it necessary that before a private <br />subdivision is included with the implementation of the Revised Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian <br />Master Plan, the Department of Public Works and Parks secure all necessary approvals from the <br />trustees or other relevant authority associated with the impacted private subdivision, and <br /> <br />Staff also stated which wasthat the Plan <br />Commission agrees to consider for incorporation the analysis and conclusion of the Revised <br />Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan into the development of the next Comprehensive Plan <br /> <br /> <br />Ms. Locke asked if there were any questions regarding the proposed amendments. There were <br />none. <br /> <br />Mr. Senturia made a motion to accept the amendments to the Resolution. The motion was <br />seconded by Ms. Hollowell and carried unanimously. <br /> <br />tm; E <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.