1990-11-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes - Plan Co~ssion November 28, 1990 Page 5 . Redevelopment Authority, stated that the City Council had requested the Authority to review the Eastgate-Westgate Urban Renewal Plan in order to determine its compliance with current state law and to determine whether it would allow use of the power of eminent domain on commercial buildings in the Loop business district. Ms. Fahey outlined ten specific changes to the plan including those to the Minimum Property Standards to bring them into conformance to the City's Existing structures Code, the extension of the effective date of the Plan, the inclusion of the power of eminent domain by the Authority on occupied buildings and revised district maps. Chairperson Kreishman asked if Commission members had any questions for Ms. Fahey. Mr. Safe asked if the amended statement on Page 10 of the Plan regarding the anticipation of no increase in population density was intended as an observation or as a desire to limit residential uses in the area. Ms. Fahey stated that it was an observation of the pattern of saturated development in the area. Mr. Marsh asked if transient housing was prohibited by the Plan. Ms. Fahey stated that there could be no transient housing on sites acquired by the Authority. Ms. Ratner asked about the power of eminent domain as outlined on Page 9 of the proposed Plan. Ms. Fahey explained that the Authority would not be permitted to acquire buildings by eminent domain on property it had previously sold and which had been developed or was being used in accordance with the Parcel Development Agreement agreed to by the parties to the sale. Chairperson Kreishman had two questions regarding Exhibits 1 and 2 of the proposed Plan. She wondered why the Tivoli property was depicted only as a commercial building on Exhibit 1 when it also contained residential, albeit condemned, residential uses. On Exhibit 2 she questioned why some parcels were proposed to remain vacant. Ms. Fahey stated that she would make the necessary corrections. Mr. Safe suggested that the parcels proposed as vacant instead be labeled "Available for Development." Mr. Marsh asked about the image of the Loop in general and Ms. Fahey detailed some of the Landlords' group efforts including anti- drug campaigns, fundraisers, litter pick-up and other neighborhood efforts. Mr. Kendall asked about the assistance plan for relocation of residents and businesses when redevelopment is proposed. Ms. Fahey and Commission members agreed that the language of Section 2(b} on Page 3 of the Plan should be changed to refer to "relocation assistance" not just "relocation." Also, relocation assistance should be extended to businesses, not just to residents. Ms. Fahey stated that the Plan might require certain editorial changes, and Commission members agreed to have staff review these changes. After further discussion, Ms. Ratner moved that the Plan Commission find that the proposed Plan conform with the City's 1986 Comprehensive Plan, subject to certain changes discussed above. Mr. Marsh seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0 and resulted in the following Resolution: