Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />Minutes - Plan Commission <br />Page 5 <br />January 8, 1986 <br /> <br />Chairman Hamilton asked if there would be a motion for approval of the <br />Planned Development District proposal and its recommendation to City <br />Council. Mr. Rice questioned the mixed uses of office and residential <br />structures and asked why General Commercial District and Planned <br />Residential-Office District would not accommodate such uses. Mr. Goldman <br />stated that Planned Residential-Office District was generally for large lots <br />with limited coverage by new development and General Commercial District <br />generally accommodated retail and service uses and not residential uses. <br />Mr. Rice made a motion that the proposed Section 34-39, "PD"-Planned <br />Development District, as amended by memorandums from Mr. Goldman to Chairman <br />Hamilton and commission members dated December 13, 1985 and January 3, 1986 <br />and the earlier motion amending Section 34-39.7e, be recommended to City <br />Council for passage. Mr. Washington seconded the motion which passed by a <br />vote of 6-0. <br /> <br />Mr. Washington left the meeting at 10:16 p.m. <br /> <br />TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE. SECTION 34-36.6cl <br /> <br />Chairman Hamilton stated that the "RC"-Retail Commercial District was <br />confined to the Delmar-Loop area and that this proposal related to setback <br />requirements along Delmar and any other street frontages in the "RC" <br />district. The 15 foot minimum setback was amended one year ago so that the <br />City Council could waive this 15 foot requirement along Delmar. Mr. Goldman <br />stated that with the pending proposal for the Market Square development by <br />McCormack-Baron, City Council should also have the right to reduce the <br />setback requirement along Kingsland Avenue or any other street frontage <br />within the "RC" district. Mr. Goldman stated that the amendment would not <br />allow a zero setback but that the City Council could consider a proposed <br />reduction of the 15 foot setback if there were some landscaping or other <br />protective provisions. <br /> <br />Mr. McCauley stated that City Council should be entrusted with the power to <br />waive the setback requirement. He also noted that the existing apartment <br />buildings in the Loop area did have less than 15 foot setbacks and that it <br />would be wrong to require new apartment buildings to be out of line with the <br />existing buildings. Mr. McCauley stated that there were also other <br />protective measures built into the site plan review process for such <br />large-scale residential development as the Market Square proposal. <br /> <br />Mr. McCauley made a motion to recommend the adoption of the amendment to <br />Section 34-36.6c.1 to City Council. Ms Schuman seconded the motion which <br />passed by a vote of 5-0. <br /> <br />MODIFICATION OF UNIVERSITY COURT URBAN RENEWAL PLAN <br /> <br />Mary Fahey, Executive Director of the University City Redevelopment <br />Authority, presented a proposal for the modification of the University Court <br /> <br />I . <br />I <br />