6:30 Review Agenda - Anything to add?
6:35 Initial Comments on Draft Report? - All
6:50 Final Parking Study Document - Mark O'Bryan
7:05 Discussion of spread sheets and solutions - Mark O'Bryan
7:25 Conclusions/The Big Picture - Mark O'Bryan
7:40 Next Steps
8:00 Adjourn
Self-introductions around room, in attendance were:
Mark Abbott, Tower Grove South
Emily Andrews - Before we turn the floor over to Mark and Sheryl does anyone have general questions or comments about the Phase III - Parking Solutions document?
Michelle Maple - Is this the final format you'll be using? With all the comments included?
Mark O'Bryan - Yes. We want this document to be a tool that shows the entire process. You all will be able to pick and choose the solutions that you think will best work for the district and include them in the district's redevelopment plan.
A discussion followed about the document. Several were worried that it is too tedious to get through and that people will not spend the time to read it. There were suggestions that we should move the comments to an appendix, that the names of the people making the comments should not be included and that at least we should distinguish between the comments of the Steering Committee and the comments of other members of the community.
Michelle - What about the appendix about trash? Where does that fit in?
Mark O'Bryan - This appendix is in response to the solution concerning the dumpsters. Large dumpsters do obstruct some parking behind homes; however, the objection to replacing them with smaller roll out carts was so vehemently opposed that it's not included in the final document. At a previous meeting (and in the text), I promised to provide more information on this topic. This appendix is something I put together for the Sustainable Neighborhoods Initiative. I thought it might be helpful to this process.
There was further discussion on the content of the document. Most agreed that it would be a good idea to reduce the amount of materials in the appendices.
Paul Stefanski - The final document is difficult to get through and to tell what's on the surface and what's not. Maybe we could move the solutions that are generally accepted to the front of the document and the others to the end.
Mark O'Bryan - But is there a consensus on the solutions?
Emily - It will be the Steering Committee's job to come to a consensus on their recommended solutions.
Dave McCreery - I guess the question is where do we go from here? There is a lot of information in this document that can help us, but where do we start?
Mark O'Bryan - The Executive Summary (which isn't complete and comes in Phase IV) will give suggestions for the course of action you should take and will start with the short-term solutions, which most find agreeable. Since the study and the solutions are market driven, you'll see that some solutions can be implemented now to relieve immediate problems. Other solutions can be implemented down the road when the market demands them. Long-term and short-term solutions also suggest a border that keeps parking solutions from overlapping into adjacent residential areas. This will keep another Commerce lot from happening, where nearly an entire block is cleared for parking.
There was also significant discussion on last sentence of the first paragraph of the document: "Most of the solutions that proposed the creation of substantial quantities of parking and also may require demolition of existing buildings or increasing the amount of paving behind existing buildings, were not approved by the Steering Committee comments." Steering Committee members thought this comment too strong. While it is true that the group disagreed with specific solutions given, it was because the group disagreed with the demolition of a specific building for historic or other reasons, not that the group disagreed with the concept the solution offered. It was agreed that we should revise this sentence.
Brian Marston - Even though the Steering Committee may have disagreed with several suggested solutions, there are at least 10 solutions that were less controversial. We should start by implementing these solutions and see where they take us before any decisions are made concerning demolitions.
Michelle - There are several mentions in the document of public parking lots, but private parking may be a more likely scenario because someone isn't going to purchase property, pay to develop a parking lot and then make it a public and free lot. It just doesn't make sense financially. And private lots help public parking.
Mark O'Bryan - The Executive Summary will address this, but there needs to be a combination of public and private lots. No one wants to pay for parking - for creating parking or to park. And this creates an issue that the district must address. Realistically, you need to take a flexible and gradual approach to improving parking in the district. Standards must be in place so that when demolitions are allowed, new construction is appropriate. The district's redevelopment plan should include strict requirements for infill construction.
Michelle - Right now the redevelopment plan says that infill should enhance the existing architecture, not replicate it.
Mark O'Bryan - The district may need to cave on this issue in the redevelopment plan in order to gain the trust of residents. If residents know for sure that infill will look as good as what they've got, they'll be more likely to accept demolition.
Paul - Mark, you're still pursuing a lot of solutions in this document that the Steering Committee disagreed with. For example, we stated that buildings on Arsenal are inappropriate for demolition, yet they're still included.
Mark O'Bryan - I am including some of the solutions that the Steering Committee disagreed with because it's important that these ideas are recorded somewhere. When this plan is reviewed 10 years from now, people may receive it differently. I am offering as alternative to a parking garage on Arsenal, a parking garage east of Grand behind the single-story commercial buildings. As I've mentioned before, the key is flexibility. This solution was actually offered by Paul, but I agreed that this fit in with solution #31. Over time, many smaller structured parking garage locations are possible, if higher density/demand/financial ability make it economically feasible.
Paul - Why does the parking demand for the Dickman building have to be adjacent to the building? The Commerce Bank lot is right across the street. You've improved it with the drawings, but you've also taken away some parking spaces by adding housing on the east end of this block.
There was discussion on the Dickman Building and the Commerce Bank lot.
There was discussion on the spreadsheets (pages 42.1 through 42.9) in the document. Brian expressed concern over the east/west dichotomy that's set up in the spreadsheets. Mark O'Bryan replied that this layout is not meant to set up a divide between the east and west sides of Grand, but that its simply a way to look at the data and better understand it.
Mark O'Bryan - The line on both the short- and long-term solutions maps is there to show a boundary to which the district can and should grow. I haven't done a block by block assessment, but it is something that residents and businesses should come together to accomplish. And in this process, the district should be pushing mixed use.
There was some discussion on the 3 parking standards (current city code, Town Center and suburban standards) compared in the document. It was agreed that the city parking code is intentionally lenient so as not to render historic buildings obsolete. It also accounts for on-street parking.
There was discussion on resident parking, particularly the difficulties of resident parking in the Southern end of the district. Mark O'Bryan brought up the idea of implementing mandatory residential parking standards, which we had discussed at a previous meeting. The Steering Committee thought it better to offer incentives for residents to improve parking on the backs of their properties. Mark suggested that perhaps the business district could help support this incentive program.
Mark O'Bryan suggested that there is the possibility of actually moving historic buildings if their original location was deemed necessary for parking. The Steering Committee agreed that this idea should be investigated. Michelle mentioned that the Indianapolis equivalent of our Landmarks Association has made a practice moved historic buildings in order to avoid demolition.
Mark O'Bryan discussed a bigger picture of examining the current funding systems that favor highway and suburban development rather than the improvement and preservation of our urban business districts. Is there really any difference between subsidizing urban parking and subsidizing suburban highways? Mark encouraged the Steering Committee to consider this debate as a possible justification for subsidy (i.e. funding) for parking improvement in the district.
Michelle - Are the maps included in this document to scale? And do they include space needed to meet landscaping and drive lane standards?
Mark O'Bryan - For the most part, the maps are accurate. To be completely accurate, we'd need a site survey to take into consideration some of the things that can be in the way and are prohibitive to move, like telephone poles, mailboxes, etc.
Paul - Will there be landscaping detail in the final plan?
Mark O'Bryan - I don't draw landscaping out in detail in the document. These standards are already very well described in the district's redevelopment plan. In the document, however, I do suggest a plan for what tree species to use. Evergreens should be used as screens between residential and business and/or parking areas. And in new lots or on the street, fast growing Poplars (which die within 10 years) should be interspersed with slower growing species like oaks.
Mark O'Bryan - Based on your minor comments on this document from this meeting and others I receive over the next few weeks, I will draft the Executive Summary. That is Phase IV (the final phase) of this project. The Executive Summary is what you'll want to present to the public and will lay out a road map for approaching parking improvement in the district. It might include ideas that you all don't agree with 100%. And I would suggest that the Executive Summary should state a willingness for strategic demolition of a limited number of buildings in order to implement the plan over the long-term.
Emily - It sounds like our next steps should be to:
Questions? Please contact Emily Andrews @ SLACO, 314-533-9104 x 205 or emlandrews@hotmail.com.
Minutes
December 5, 2002
December 5, 2002
Submitted by Emily Andrews
Susan Anderson, S. Grand Community Improvement District
Emily Andrews, SLACO
Alderman Steve Conway, 8th Ward
Dave Drebes, Tower Grove East
Sheryl Foster-Gadkari, Strategic Impact, Inc.
Michelle Maple, Commercial District Manager
Dave McCreery, S. Grand Business District
Brian Marston, Tower Grove South
Patrick Moore, Tower Grove East
Mark O'Bryan, Art & Architecture, Inc.
Paul Stefanski, Tower Grove South
Dick Zerega, St. Louis Planning and Urban Design Agency