JEFF Public Comment AUGUST18

Fyon - Bemiss

Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres

10 pages

English

Le téléchargement nécessite un accès à la bibliothèque YouScribe
Tout savoir sur nos offres

A propos
Informations
Extrait

Description

Informations

Publié par	Fyon
Nombre de lectures	18
Langue	English

Extrait

Public Scoping Comment Analysis
on the
Preliminary Alternatives

General Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
St. Louis, Missouri

EDAW, Inc.

August 18, 2008

Page 1 of 10

Public Scoping Comment Analysis

The following is a preliminary interpretation of the public comments received during the public scoping
period. Comments were collected in the following formats:
• at public meetings held in St. Louis on June 25 and July 1, 2008, comments were recorded
anonymously on flip charts, completed comment forms were collected in drop-boxes, and
verbal comments were transcribed by a court reporter;
• comment forms, letters, architectural drawings, and miscellaneous planning documents were
received by mail; and
• emails and web entries were gathered via the Planning, Environment, and Public Comment
(PEPC) system.

Approximately 700 correspondences were gathered and analyzed. Thirty-eight of the
correspondences received were form letters that followed one of three formats (identical
correspondence, correspondence with identical content (is talking points) and the public comment
form filled out identically). Eighty letters were received from organizations (government, business,
professional associations and civic). The majority of the letters from organizations and all of the form
letters were in support of a museum on the Arch Grounds. As a result of the call for public input, 6
detailed drawings were submitted by local residents, artists and architects. For the purpose of
analysis, these illustrated suggestions for redesign/redevelopment of the Memorial were not included
as comments on the Preliminary Alternatives. Comments were analyzed for this report if they were
postmarked by July 14 or received via PEPC by July 16.
Methodology
To analyze the public comments, representative categories were developed from the planning issues
identified during internal scoping work sessions. These were documented in Newsletter Number One
published in June 2008. The same categories were established for general comments as well as for
each preliminary alternative. Comments were then coded in PEPC according to the category to which
they most closely correlated:
- Program/Visitor Services
- Connectivity/Urban Interface
- Resource Stewardship/Design Integrity
- “For” Development
- “Against” Development
- Access
- Security
- East St. Louis
- Operations
- New Ideas for Alternatives
- Miscellaneous/Unrelated
- Planning Process

After being sorted in PEPC, each category of comments was further reviewed to identify specific
trends and new suggestions related to the Preliminary Alternatives. The majority of the comments
received did not reference a particular alternative. Rather, the comments generally referenced a
specific service, amenity, and/or type of development or connector the commenter supported or
opposed. Fewer than seventeen percent (17%) of the comments received made reference to a
Page 2 of 10
particular alternative, but those that did seemed to state a preference for or against an alternative,
based on the presence or absence of a new attraction within the grounds along Memorial Drive.

The seven hundred eight (708) pieces of correspondence received came in the form of letters, park
comment forms and web entries on PEPC. In order to analyze these correspondences, we considered
a single thought within every correspondence to be a comment. Therefore, a correspondence could
generate more than one comment for analysis. Approximately six hundred (600) people attended the
two public open houses and provided around fourteen hundred (1400) public remarks that were
recorded at the flip charts during the open houses. These remarks cannot be attributed to any one
person since they were collected anonymously. Each public remark recorded on a flip chart was also
considered to be one comment for analysis purposes. Because of this, the seven hundred eight (708)
pieces of correspondence and the flip chart remarks generated twenty-eight hundred (2800)
comments that were analyzed for this report. The total number of correspondences and comments
are not indicative of the number of individuals who provided public feedback due to the fact that any
one person or correspondence could have generated multiple comments and individual authors of the
correspondences could not always be identified. That being said, the number of respondents is
thought to be around eleven hundred (1,100).

The following summary of comments is provided to outline the major groupings of comments, along
with examples of specific comments to illustrate the trend. Where possible, the number of comments
that were received in a specific area is noted.

General Trends

Program/Visitor Services
One hundred twenty-three (123) comments requested more activities and amenities on the Arch grounds and at
the Memorial, in general, to enliven the park and increase visitation. Suggestions for activities and amenities
included, among others: walking tours, concerts, travelling sculpture displays, outdoor movies, picnic tables,
amphitheatre, walking paths, restrooms that can be accessed without going through security, bike paths and
places to sit and watch the river. Over 100 comments were received requesting better access to food and
refreshments (restaurants, cafes, push carts) on the Arch grounds, while a much smaller number of comments
(11) were received opposing the addition of restaurants and expanded food service. Thirty-five (35) comments
were received specifically referencing the desire for more programming at the North and South Nodes of the
Memorial. A variety of suggestions were offered to draw more people to the nodes: cafes, restaurants, theatres,
museum, visitor center and gardens. Additionally, comments reflected a desire to have the current underground um facilities updated, renovated and potentially expanded.

“The current museum really needs to be updated to current standards and should be done
so in a manner that allows it to change overtime to meet educational needs of the public on
the topic of westward expansion and territory acquisition.”

“I just found out last year the Old Courthouse was part of the park. It is one of the neatest
buildings and should really be capitalized on."

“It takes so long to admire the Arch from outside, visit the top, and see the Museum that
one becomes very hungry; having a quick lunch would make the experience much more
‘visitor friendly’. Going to Laclede's Landing is too far and takes too long, particularly with
children.”

Page 3 of 10
Connectivity/Urban Interface, Access, Parking and Wayfinding
Connectivity Respondents were highly supportive of improved connectivity that includes safe, pedestrian-
friendly access to downtown (60 comments), the riverfront (20 comments) and the neighboring areas of Laclede’s
and Chouteau’s Landings (31 comments). Specific comments about the type of “connector” across Memorial
Drive and the benefits of a connector were noted in about twenty-five percent (25%) of the comments, though
some comments reflected a concern with the cost of providing for some of the options. In total, over 100
comments noted a need to implement some form of an at-grade pedestrian lid to help create a pedestrian friendly
crossing, cut down on noise from the interstate and help to create a visual and physical connection between the
Old Courthouse and the Arch Grounds. On a related point, a number of comments (14) specifically expressed an
interest to have the Metro Link station at Eads Bridge, between the North Node and Laclede’s Landing linked to
the Arch grounds with a walkway or other type of connection. On the other side, twenty-eight (28) respondents
were against any kind of at-grade lid, citing impracticality and expense.

“You know, there's only certain places you can access the Arch. And for a visitor to St. Louis, they really
have to kinda look around and figure out how to get over there.”

“I'm very, very supportive of anything we can do to connect the Arch and downtown. I don't know why it
hadn't been done a long time ago. I think it's very important for our city. I think it's very important for
tourists to be able to tour from the Arch ground to the downtown area and be able to utilize both.”

“We like the idea of improving the connection between the city here and the Courthouse and the Arch
grounds so that pedestrians can move from here, cross over the roads and interstates, and land on the
grounds without having to endure traffic and the hazards of traffic. Probably some kind of lid over the
interstate so that it cuts down on the noise -that is hazardous.”

“Covering the highway is going to create a traffic hazard if there's accidents down in this tunnel. They
don't have that much pedestrian traffic to go across to justi