1989-05-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 6 May 24, 1989 the Plan Commission intended to use eminent domain to acquire residential property and thereby facilitate its conversion to commercial use. Chairman McCauley and Mr. Rice stated that eminent domain was a tool to be employed only by a decision of the City Council; however, the existing and proposed Plan language made no mention of eminent domain. In any event, the Plan Commission would encourage a developer's responsibility to acquire individual properties in order to gain standing to propose rezoning. Ms. Kreishman supported the proposed language because she believed the city should not continue to support strip commercial development. Mr. Washington stated that the proposed Plan language certainly did not threaten residential property owners with any possibility that their land could be arbitrarily taken. He continued by stating that the language did a good job towards balancing the need for economic development in the city with protecting viable residential neighborhoods. After continued discussion during which Chairman McCauley again reviewed the specific language outlined above and proposed for pages 20, 24 and 40 of the 1986 Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Kreishman moved that the Plan Commission adopt the proposed changes as submitted by the City Manager and City Council. She agreed with the policy in the 1986 Plan against further strip commercial development along Olive, and further believed that this was but a small step in planning policy development. Mr. Rice seconded the motion. He applauded the enthusiasm of those present and hoped that they would remain interested in the issues discussed at this hearing. He remained convinced that larger scale commercial development is needed to make reasonable use of the Olive Boulevard corridor. After several members reviewed their positions on the issues just presented, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0. PROPOSAL TO AMEND UNIVERSITY CITY SIGN CODE - INDUSTRIAL GROUP IDENTIFICATION SIGNS Mr. Goldman and Ms. Elwood explained that the following subsection (g) had been proposed by staff as an addition to Section 34-102.4 of the Sign Code in response to the Plan Commission's request for appropriate identification of groups of industrial buildings without frontage facing a right-of-way: g. Industrial Group Identification Signs: Groups of industrial establishments containing a minimum of four (4) establishments, and a mlnlmum of three hundred (300) feet of street frontage, shall be permitted a freestanding identification sign not exceeding fifteen (15) feet in sign height and located with a setback of at least five (5) feet from the right-of-way line. Such identification sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in gross sign area and may include the name of the industrial group, address, and directory information. Ms. Kreishman questioned use of the word "Identification" in the name for this proposed signage. She believed that this implied that the sign would serve the purpose of a Primary Sign rather than a Special Purpose Sign. Commission members questioned several other aspects of the proposal including the appropriate height for the sign and the need of the businesses to have any other freestanding primary signage. Mr. Goldman indicated that Planning staff would review these possibilities and report back to the Plan Commission at its June meeting.