1989-05-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 5 May 24, 1989 Mr. Chuck Finan, 7333 Wellington Avenue, stated that he was not opposed to commercial expansion; however, he urged the appointment of a joint city/ neighborhood commission to be involved in agreements with commercial developers in preserving neighborhood integrity. Chairman McCauley indicated that there was precedent for citizen involvement in rezoning issues and development proposals. He cited the extreme amount of citizen interest in the One McKnight Place retirement center now located at 1-170 between Barby Lane and West Kingsbury Avenue and explained that many citizens had appeared to speak at public hearings, came to City hall to examine plans and met in neighborhood groups with representatives from the developer and the city to discuss how best the development could blend with the remaining single family residences. Chairman McCauley continued by explaining how the Plan Commission had adopted, at its March meeting, amended Plan language explaining the need for increased depth of commercial zoning along the Olive corridor and setting forth the policy to accomplish same. The objective of this second public hearing was to review the already adopted language and explore whether more detailed criteria for commercial expansion were needed in order to assure sound economic development as well as protection for residential neighborhoods. Mr. Price asked if the proposed Plan language as well as that adopted in March applied to rezoning residential property along the entire Olive corridor or only a portion of same at important junctures. Chairman McCauley replied that the proposed language would put in place a policy and standards which would potentially apply to residential property along the entire corridor; however, he was quick to point out that no rezoning proposals had been presented to the Plan Commission and that adoption of the proposed language would in no way act to rezone any property. The proposed language would be the most preliminary step in expressing the city's willingness to review redevelopment proposals in light of the standards set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code. A developer must work to convince the Plan Commission and City Council that any redevelopment proposed would bring more benefit than detriment to the city and the neighborhood. Mr. Kendall agreed that the Plan Commission and City Council must find, in any specific development proposal, a contribution to the general welfare. Chairman McCauley noted that the questions and comments presented sensitized everyone present to the needs of the community. He reiterated that the language proposed by the City Council and City Manager served to refine the Plan and set standards for the protection of residential properties. Mr. Goldman stated that previous city Comprehensive Plans and Zoning Code amendments had anticipated redevelopment some of which had never materialized. He cited proposals for a Famous Barr store in the Loop and an apartment development across from Heman Park which never congealed due to inadequate economic conditions. He stated that any expectations expressed by the proposed Plan language may, likewise, never materialize due to adverse economic conditions. Mr. Rice remembered discussion of the Olive Boulevard commercial areas among Plan Commission members in 1986 when the Comprehensive Plan was being drafted. His recollection of these many discussions was that staff and members agreed that the city's commercial areas were not fully developed and could be better utilized for more convenient, larger scale developments with improved appearances as well as pedestrian and automobile access. Mr. Ellinger asked if