Community and Business Kick-Off Workshop Meetings Summary (May 6 & 7, 2014)
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Community and Business Kick-Off Workshop
Meetings Summary
(May 6 & 7, 2014)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document summarizes the input and comments received from the City of University City’s
Comprehensive Plan Community and Business Kick-Off Public Workshops held on Tuesday, May
6, 2014 from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. and Wednesday, May 7, 2014 from 9:00 – 10:30 a.m. at the
Heman Park Community Center. Both meetings had the same content presented. The purpose
of the meetings was to introduce and inform University City residents and business and
commercial property owners about the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Update and to begin
a conversation as to what they believe are some of the most pressing and critical issues and/or
concerns confronting the city in a “workshop” format that allowed informal discussions
throughout the session. Stakeholders in attendance had the opportunity to share with the
planning consultant team their view’s on the problems, issues and assets within the city and
learn more about the plan’s development process, schedule and upcoming outreach and
engagement activities.
In total, about 100 people attended the series of Kick-Off meetings. City of University City
Mayor Shelly Welsch, members of the Plan Commission and its Comprehensive Plan Committee
(CPC), the newly formed Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), City Staff, and the
Planning Consultant and Community Engagement Team were available to discuss the update
process, explain the various components and key elements of the plan, answer questions and
receive comments. Planning team members and city staff were available to talk with
participants individually and answer any questions about the planning process. A questionnaire
asking each recipient to identity at least five (5) issues or concerns confronting the City was
distributed to meeting participants. Attendees were asked to complete the form on-site, share
with the entire group during the workshop discussion and then encourage their neighbors and
others to visit the city’s website to participate in the online survey for residents and businesses
and utilize the interactive mapping tool. Hard copies of the survey are available at the Public
Library, Centennial Commons, and City Hall for completion. Attendees were also asked to sign
up for issue-specific working groups that are to be formed.
MEETING FORMAT AND WORKSHOP HIGHLIGHTS
A workshop format was used to gather information from the public. This format allowed the
planning consultants and community engagement team an opportunity to address the group as a
whole and engage them in a brief prioritization exercise where each person in attendance was
given the opportunity to express at least one concern to the entire group. These concerns were
captured and recorded by a member of the planning consultant team and compiled into a listthat was projected onto a screen for everyone to view. Out of the 50+ issues and/or concerns
that were recorded, some of the issues identified by the attendees to be of the most concern for
residents were:
Roadway and sidewalk improvements to the Olive Street corridor
Safety, especially in the Delmar Loop for local residents and visitors
Available and affordable activities for youth in the community
Embracing diversity while decreasing division within the community
There were a total of four questions asked during the prioritization exercise and each
participant had the opportunity to list, in order of importance, their top three concerns as well
as identify at least three specific projects or actions that they would like to see undertaken by
the city in order to enhance the city and/or improve the business environment within city.
Those concerns identified were as follows:
TOP ISSUES BY RESIDENTS:
1. Poor condition of roads and sidewalks
2. Balance tax base with residential community character
3. Washington University’s impact on tax base
4. Olive Street Corridor economic development
5. Poor image of schools in the area (quality & image)
6. Long-term financial health
7. Crime prevention information and awareness
8. Impact of rental properties on maintenance and safety
9. Better cooperation/need for more functional cooperative City Government
10. Preserve cultural and economic diversity
11. Ensure fair treatment from County and State government
12. Neighborhood-Oriented commercial nodes need attention
TOP ISSUES BY BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNERS:
1. Parking
2. Telecommunications
3. Washington University
4. Olive Street Corridor
5. Realistic view of development economics
6. Transportation/Mobility
7. Infrastructure
8. Targeted/ Visionary redevelopment
SPECIFIC PROJECTS OR ACTIONS SUGGESTED TO BE IMPLEMENTED FOR RESIDENTS:
1. High Speed internet along Olive Street
2. Consistencies of inspection for building permits
3. Solar energy on every roof top in the city
In closing, participants were asked to identify what they saw to be a primary strength and/or
asset for University City. They were identified as follows:
2|PagePRIMARY STRENGTHS AND/OR ASSETS FOR RESIDENTS:
1. Washington University
2. Parks
3. Citizens of community
4. Cultural diversity
5. Library
PRIMARY STRENGTHS AND/OR ASSETS FOR BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
OWNERS:
1. Washington University
2. Location
3. Diversity
4. Close to Forest Park
PUBLICITY AND MEDIA COVERAGE
The community was made aware of the meeting through a variety of methods employed by City
Staff. For instance, a press release was prepared and sent out electronically to key media
outlets, community leaders, and neighborhood associations who then distributed the information
to their constituents respectively. Also, an announcement regarding both meetings was also
posted on the city’s website.
At the meeting, attendees were asked to complete a brief questionnaire where they identified
how they learned about the meetings. Most workshop attendees indicated that they learned
about the meetings through other means that included a combination of word of mouth, email,
neighborhood association newsletter, NextDoor.com and city staff.
How did you hear about today's
meeting?
18
13
6
4
2 2
0 0 0 0
3|PageCONCERNS LISTED DURING COMMUNITY MEETING
At the community meeting, more than 50 issues and/or concerns were identified. Below is a
listing of those issues that were identified:
1. Bad roads and sidewalks in 3rd Ward
2. Assistance with upkeep for elderly residents
3. Balance tax base with residential community character
4. Lack of identity on Olive Street corridor
5. Traffic around Delmar Loop (i.e. congestion)
6. Washington University’s effect on tax base
7. Impact of Wash U on services and infrastructure
8. Olive Corridor economic development
9. Population loss
10. Resistance to change in the name of tradition
11. Poor image of schools(quality & image)
12. Enhancing international development on Olive
13. Revised usable pathway for the Loop trolley
14. Long-term financial health
15. Tie in schools with technology development
16. Replacement plan for the older trees
17. Deterioration/lack of development of Olive
18. Division throughout city need unified sense of purpose
19. Are we welcoming to small businesses
20. Increase bike/pedestrian safety and access
21. More housing options for aging population
22. Vacancies on Olive Street
23. Attract businesses within local character of city
24. Development around the bridge center on Olive
25. Crime prevention information and awareness
26. Impact of rental properties on maintenance and safety
27. Better cooperation/need more functional cooperative City Government
28. City is land locked nowhere to expand
29. Need to allow more diversity
30. Affordable services and amenities for all age groups(i.e. kids, teens)
31. Preserve cultural and economic diversity
32. Need for complete streets
33. Safety perception/reputation of loop
34. Escalating rent rates in the loop
35. Delmar/North & South good models for Olive sub districts
36. Need for sales tax pool
37. Need foresight for environmental friendly development
38. Coordination with other cities for economic development
39. Ensure fair treatment from County and State government
40. Need for City-Wide compost collection
41. Neighborhood-Oriented commercial nodes need attention
42. Shallow lots on Olive Street
43. Need for a low cost attractions/activities alternative for youth
44. Need to increase volunteerism/involvement of youth
45. Maintenance/landscaping of existing businesses
46. Police presence on the streets
4|Page47. Flooding and flood plains
48. Disruption caused by construction projects (i.e. Loop trolley)
49. Walkable Asian Center on Olive Street
50. Crossing on Olive Street is unsafe
51. Emphasis on the 3rd Ward
52. Need to retain free public parking in the Loop
53. Create a municipal power utility
54. Gang activity/organized crime
CONCERNS LISTED DURING BUSINESS MEETING
The business and commercial property owners of University City identified similar issues and/or
concerns. Those concerns identified included:
1. Capitalize on Washington University’s Bio Medical Research Department/Section
2. Aging Infrastructure
3. Design and site layout of new businesses
4. University City needs to be pro-business building on assets
5. Olive Street Corridor improvements
6. Mix of goods and services
7. Economic development support from city need to be promoted
8. Attracting new retailers to Loop-Balance of retail & restaurants
9. Access to transportation to services for seniors
10. City-Wide vision for live/work/shop/entertainment
11. Fostering project sites for commercial/residential mixed use
12. Building on Washington University’s reputation and resources
13. Parking in the Loop and for trolley
14. High speed internet infrastructure on Olive and Delmar
15. Expanded parking in the loop(potential structural parking above ground floor uses)
16. Using parking to generate revenue in the Loop
17. Telecommunications upgrade on Olive Street
18. Focus on Olive for redevelopment
19. Olive development, instill pride, reduce crime, provide quality services
20. Enrichment of Loop parking in residential areas
21. Building inspection process disincentive to develop in University City
22. Realistic view for redevelopment and understanding practical limitations
23. Political accountability among City government and schools
24. Accumulating proper right-of-way for traffic flow and landscaping
25. Understanding of practical realities to identify best redevelopment opportunities
26. Preserving historic character of University City with balancing new development
5|PageYou can also read
