Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Minutes - Plan Commission <br />Page 3 <br />January 8, 1986 <br /> <br />Parking Garages would require a Conditional Use Permit with the intent that <br />such a use would not become the principal use of the property to be rezoned. <br />Mr. Goldman stated that the residential development standards were an <br />attempt to simplify residential development proposal procedure and allow <br />more intensive residential devleopment. Finally, the title of the proposal <br />had been changed from a "Special Development District" to a "Planned <br />Development District," noting that the intent of the section was aimed at <br />well-planned development which would be of benefit to University City. <br /> <br />Commission members questioned some of the proposed changes of the original <br />draft. Mr. McCauley asked if all proposed parking garages within the <br />development district wouldn't be owned by the City. Mr. Goldman stated that <br />this would not always be the case. Mr. McCauley also asked if the permitted <br />uses would be subject to Conditional Use Permit or Site Plan Review with or <br />without a public hearing. Mr. Goldman stated a Site Plan Review does not <br />require a public hearing, rezoning amendments do require a public hearing <br />before City Council and Conditional Use applications require a public <br />hearing before the Plan Commission. Mr. Goldman stated that the most <br />important thing to remember about this proposal was that the new zoning <br />category would not be automatically applied to a specific section of the <br />city. The regulations would be applied on a parcel-by-parcel basis and only <br />after a public hearing before the City Council since each property subject <br />to a development proposal would be rezoned separately. <br /> <br />At this point, Chairman Hamilton called on the citizens in the audience and <br />asked if they had any questions regarding the proposed district. <br /> <br />Citizens' questions were many and varied. Some of their questions stemmed <br />from concerns over feasibility of implementing a new zoning district, the <br />success of residential-office developments, the origination of this <br />particular proposal, spot zoning issues, the material benefit to University <br />City and more specific questions about the zoning regulations themselves. <br />In response to some of the concerns of citizens, Chairman Hamilton stated <br />that the proposed Planned Development District was an ideal proposal because <br />the imposition of such a district would not put University City or its <br />residents in a risky position. The city would merely respond to rezoning <br />requests as they came in and would not rezone any area of University City on <br />a blanket basis. Mr. Ollendorff responded to certain questions by stating <br />that some of the accessory commercial uses of proposed office or multi- <br />family residential development were limited by the ordinance so that <br />service, commercial or retail use of the property would never become a <br />primary use. Mr. McCauley noted that the present zoning ordinance contains <br />certain deficiences regarding how the Plan Commission and City Council could <br />review quality development proposals for high density multi-family use or <br />office uses. Mr. McCauley also stated that the present "PR-O" Planned <br />Residential-Office District allowed for mixed uses, and that mixed <br />