1989-12-05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 3 December 5, 1989 Mr. Goldman suggested including language referring to "viable" multi-family properties along Olive as inappropriate candidates for commercial redevelopment. Ms. Kreishman agreed with Mr. Goldman that the existing language approved by the Commission in May was sufficient to protect viable residential properties from random commercial rezoning and redevelopment. Ms. Kreishman pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan is meant to be a general document outlining broad, not specific, policies. Such policies would not be a part of the Zoning Code if that was the protection the residents were seeking. Chairman McCauley and Mr. Safe agreed. Mr. Goldman explained the history of zoning along Olive Boulevard as it evolved from a farm-to-market route to an area ripe for potential residential expansion in order to eliminate a deteriorating commercial area. With the current potential for commercial redevelopment, the issue is not a residential versus a commercial one, but rather one intended to improve the appearance of Olive Boulevard, one of the city's major thoroughfares. Byron Price, Councilmember representing the City's 3rd Ward, stated that he had been uncomfortable with the general nature of the previous amendments recommended by the Plan Commission and felt that the current proposal would give current and future City Council membership a specific guide for appropriate rezoning for commercial development along Olive Boulevard. Mr. Price indicated his belief that generalities in the Plan's language scare people because of the vast number of possible scenarios. Specific language narrowed these possibilities considerably. Mr. Rory Ellinger of 7340 Melrose Avenue and President of the Musick Subdivision Association disagreed with Mr. Goldman's characterization of the proposed language as "spot planning" and stated that the mid-block designation of certain residential properties was not unique to the Musick subdivision. Specific discussion ensued regarding potential development of the former Mercy High School site, with a consensus that the proposed language would allow rezoning of the site, with no commercial expansion beyond that to the south or east. Mr. Wylan expressed his concern for the possibility of several, separate commercial developments occurring over time which, in his estimation, could erode a residential subdivision. He wondered what Melrose Avenue, for example, would look like with commercial encroachment to its south side. Chairman McCauley pointed out some examples of this in the Saint Louis area, specifically in Webster Groves where commercial expansion co-existed with a surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Washington and Mr. Kendall both expressed their concerns that the Plan language could continue being reviewed and narrowed and still leave residents unsatisfied as to the potential for commercial expansion of the Olive Boulevard corridor. Both members had voted for both the first and second proposed amendments because each version of the language seemed to reflect the opinions expressed in the public hearing. Both members were wary about continual proposal and revision. Mr. Safe reiterated his preference for general wording in the Comprehensive Plan as several other levels exist for protection of existing viable neighborhoods. He stated that it would be incorrect to believe that the proposed language was a guarantee against any commercial expansion. Mr. Kendall, Mr. Washington and Mr. Foxworth had no real opposition to the currently proposed language so long as it was intended to give residents and the Council a sense of direction and not used as ammunition against all potential rezoning proposals.