1986-04-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 3 April 15, 1986 Ms. Schuman arrived at 8:08 p.m. Chairman Hamilton stated that the next topic for discussion would be Residential Neighborhoods, Preservation and Maintenance Of. He noted his objection to the system for assessing Neighborhood Quality. (p. 17). He stated that one cannot statistically rate quality. He would liKe to see the section expanded to include a list of the criteria on which quality is based. Mr. Goldman agreed that this was a particular weaKness of the section. Ms. Schuman noted that she did not understand the quantum "Good", "Fair" or "Poor." (Neighborhood Ratings Table, p. 17). Ms. CooK noted that part of the problem with this section was establishing criteria for University City neighborhoods and not using criteria which would compare them to other cities' neighborhoods. She noted that an average of individual homes on one blocK frontage does not define "a neighborhood." Ms. Schuman questioned the breakdown of neighborhood ratings by Ward. (Neighborhood Ratings Table p. 17). Mr. Goldman noted the low response level of those surveyed; however, listing responses by Ward was the lowest breakdown for which there would be statistically relevant data. Mr. McCauley suggested that First Ward responses might be more favorable because of the activity of trustees in the First Ward subdivisions. Mr. McCauley also noted that the Neighborhood Section began on an optimistic note, but ended with an impression of cause for concern over the neighborhoods in University City. Mr. Ollendorff disagreed and stated that he felt people were satisfied with their neighborhoods; the City should continue its current policies of helping the neighborhoods. Ms. Schuman stated that the Plan should frankly state that University City neighborhoods are older, but that it is not a negative characteristic. Chairman Hamilton stated that the author talked about reuse activities versus strengthening of neighborhood character. (p. 20). He stated that this idea should be expanded either in this section or in the Development section. In either case, the Plan should specify the use activity ultimately desired. At the same time, however, the Plan should not state that the City wants to change the use of any neighborhoods. Chairman Hamilton stated that discussion of the Housing section should be next. Mr. McCauley stated that the data in this and other sections seemed dated. He specifically referred to the Table of Building Permits Issued For Residential Additions; Alterations and Residential Accessory Structures, (p. 24). He noted that the table contained four years of data and the value of construction was listed in 1984 dollars. Mr. Goldman stated that this table reflected the number of building permits for additions and alterations to existing structures, but did not contain data regarding new development. Mr. McCauley and Ms. Schuman questioned the census figures used on page 25. Ms. Schuman stated that she questioned the purpose of breaKing down owner/occupied and renter/occupied housing units by race. She stated that she would like data included about elderly owners versus renters and also about renter/occupied housing units with children. She stated that she