Laserfiche WebLink
<br />11113 <br />~n Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. <br /> <br />page 16 <br /> <br />Ultimately, this part of the process will be used to inform the planning <br />process and guide the creation of alternatives for land use and development. <br /> <br />Tasks: <br />2.1 <br />2.2 <br /> <br />Conduct "key player" interviews <br />Conduct Community Workshop One to inform the residents, <br />business people and other interested individuals about the process, <br />and take input regarding the redevelopment area, its relation to <br />the rest of downtown, and how it might be shaped to reflect their <br />desire for the future of downtown Centerville. <br />Summarize input from community <br /> <br />2.3 <br /> <br />Dellverables: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />swnmary of "key player" interviews <br />summary of input from the community <br />Community Workshop #1 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Task 3.0 Explore possible directions <br />Our proposal suggests that a charrette format will be used to pursue <br />exploration of a series of alternatives for the redevelopment area. Wlrile <br />other tasks constitute parts of the charrette, its most significant element is <br />the collaborative work session conducted on site by the HKGi team. The <br />session allows for the interests of the entire consulting team to be shared <br />in a process that affords balance to the redevelopment scenarios that will <br />be considered by the community. In this sense, those alternatives will <br />address not only the physical design and function of the redevelopment <br />area, they will consider issues of market potential as provided by the <br />McComb Group and implementation. <br /> <br />Based on the input provided by the community during the first workshop <br />and the insights provided to the HKGi team through the interviews, the <br />HKCi team will generate alternative scenarios for development within <br />the project area. Several alternatives might be prepared to demonstrate a <br />range of possible solutions, and to provide a means of evaluating potential <br />directions when no clear solution is evident. Each alternative might have <br />different implications in terms of aesthetics; the role of CR 14 as it relates <br />to potential development; the changes in traffic patterns as a result of the <br />CR 14 redesign; access to development for both cars and pedestrians; the <br />demand for (or impacts on) parking; relationship to other community <br />features/institutes (such as the school); establishment or reinforcement of <br />