2013-02-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Public Comments Dan Wald owner of Market in The Loop and other properties, addressed the Plan Commission. He stated that one of the problems that was brought up at meetings last summer was that there was no notification of property owners in The Loop. He stated that one of the conclusions of the Plan was to develop and incorporate form based code for this area and if the Plan was accepted, there would be changes to the Zoning Code. He stated that it was his opinion that the Plan was developed to benefit Washington University and some of the zoning changes were already in effect since a variance had been approved for the Washington University development at Delmar and Eastgate which includes residential units that do not meet the parking requirements. He stated that the consultants should have been chosen through an RFP and property owners and merchants had not been included in the preparation of the Plan, nor had stakeholders been contacted. He also stated that the City never talked to the LSBD about the Plan. Steven Stone property owner in The Loop, addressed the Plan Commission. He stated that when the Plan was previously before the Plan Commission he was aware of additional density proposed and the parking problems it would cause. He stated that one of the solutions was for construction of a garage on Parking Lot 4. He stated he liked the Plan but there should be solutions other than structured parking to increase density. He stated that when he built his own building in The Loop he had to address parking. He suggested eliminating the references to structured parking on Parking Lot 4 but it should also require developers to be responsible for their own parking on site. He stated that recommendations in the Plan make reference to shared structured parking and the Plan Commission advice was to solve the problem. He stated that if recommendations are to be made in the Plan, it should include requiring the developer to be responsible for parking. Paulette Carr 7901 Gannon, addressed the Plan Commission. She stated that she read the Parkview Gardens Plan and checked that the Plan Commission direction was included which stated there were current and future unmet parking needs that need to be addressed in the study area and beyond. She stated this was mandatory because there were parking problems in The Loop and there needed to be creative solutions to those parking problems. She stated there were references to shared public parking and that perhaps residents and visitors would be sharing the spaces. She stated that if more pressure were placed on parking, it would be difficult for landlords to sell or rent their units. She stated that the Plan should address that parking be provided by developers. She also stated that there were references to reducing the parking requirements, but that if density was going to increase, we could not ask people to abandon their cars. Ms. Riganti stated that the Plan was a policy guide and would not change any zoning requirements. She stated that one of the recommendations in the Plan was that after adoption, the City should consider exploring form-based code for this area and that by adopting the Plan, it would not be adopting new zoning in this area because there was a process required for zoning amendments which would not be immediate if the Plan were adopted. She stated that any new developments in the area would require adequate on-site parking to be provided under the current Zoning Code. She stated that the purpose of the Plan, which was a sustainable neighborhood development plan, as specified in the grant awarded for preparation of the Plan, was to explore tğŭĻ Џ ƚŅ А