1986-04-15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 4 Apr il 15, 1986 would like to see the figures regarding race related to a conclusion. Mr. Washington stated that for various reasons data regarding race was often required by the state and federal governments. Mr. McCauley stated that the Plan should refer to "federal government funding" rather than "Community Development funding." (p. 28). Ms. COOK aSKed whether the University City Residential Service (UCRS) marketed any properties through real estate brokers and wondered whether such a marketing strategy should be mentioned in the Plan. Mr. Goldman and Mr. Ollendorff stated that their services were not part of City planning policy and that the UCRS was a private entity. Chairman Hamilton stated that the next topic of discussion would be the Development section of the Plan. (p. 30). He began discussion about the chart entitled "Areas Available For Development in University City, Missouri." Mr. Goldman stated that Item No.3, the Westover Nursery site at 7900 Olive, was the subject of a pending Site Plan application, but he had not heard from the applicants in recent months. He stated that item No.9, Hanley Jr. High School, at 951 North Hanley, should have an asterisK beside it because it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Chairman Hamilton noted that from the discussion of the last meeting, the title of the chart, "Underutilized Areas Suitable for Redevelopment" should be changed to "Areas Suitable for More Intensive Use." (p. 34). Mr. McCauley wondered whether the Hanley Jr. High School property should be referred to in the text regarding the City's commitment to its preservatioD-- If this was not the case, it should be listed in the section on Buildable Parcels rather than in the section on Large Buildings Available For Reuse. Mr. Ollendorff stated that the City was looKing for proposals for the building's best use rather than a compromise use. He stated that the City could change its commitment to preserve the building if the right proposal came along. He stated that it was important to preserve the front facade; however, the gymnasium and the auditorium additions were not historically relevant. He stated that the City Council felt that the parcel would not be appropriate for "GC"- General Commercial zoning. Chairman Hamilton noted that the Ruth ParK Nature Study Area, listed as Item No. 19, was indeed owned by the City. (p. 34). Its use as a tree nursery was discontinued; it was also once a potential site for the Museum of Science and Natural History of St. Louis County. Chairman Hamilton stated that he would be reluctant to lose such an area as open space. Because of this, he did not feel that the parcel was "underutilized." Mr. Ollendorff noted that the area was difficult to develop because of the hill and the river contained within the parcel. He suggested deleting the Area from the list. Mr. McCauley stated that he would like to see the Area Kept on the list even though it is perceived as a part of Ruth Park. Ms. Schuman questioned Item No. 17, the Forsyth/Clayton Expansion Area. (p. 34). Mr. Goldman noted that this Area was located just east of Famous-Barr and included some of the Northmoor neighborhood; he did not