2002-05-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

May 22, 2002, Plan Commission Minutes Page 2 of 3 increase the tax base and that this would lower the general tax rate. He indicated that infill housing provides the opportunity for the overall tax rate to come down. Ralph Bowser - 8050 Teasdale stated that he was concerned over how much room was in the houses that were being built since they are large houses on small lots. He also stated that someone in his neighborhood had indicated that the neighborhood would be hiring an attorney to protect themselves from the Plan Commission. Mark Rubin - 6924 Columbia stated that there should not be an architectural review board. He indicated that more layers of the review would add more time to the process as well as impinge on the rights for people to use their property. John McDonald - 515 Westview Drive spoke to a situation at Gay and Teasdale and the amount of time the construction took. He further suggested that a protective fence should be required for all demolitions. Robert Kramer - 8132 Gannon Avenue stated that he supported infill housing. He indicated that high quality housing was important to increase the revenue for the City and would assist with improving the University City School District. No other members of the public wished to speak. Plan Commission member discussion continued regarding the advantages and disadvantages of infill housing. There was no action taken on the staff report. It was decided that Staff would research the issue of architectural review boards between now and July. Ms. Borg moved that staff examine the possibility of establishing an architectural review board. A key point to be examined is how much time, if any, would be added to the process as well as addressing the point noted in the staff report about architectural review boards being arbitrary and capricious. The motion was seconded by Ms. Arbogast and passed by a vote of 6 to 0 with all members voting “aye.” An additional item that the Plan Commission would like to address with respect to infill housing is the need for protection during demolition (i.e. fencing, etc.). It might be necessary down the line to make changes to the Zoning Code to address the issues concerning in-fill housing. It was decided that the report on the architectural review board and protection for demolitions is due th at the July meeting for the Plan Commission. Staff should have this report finalized by July 5. Text Amendment: Adult Businesses - Article 2 - Definitions and Article 5 - Section 34-67 Chairperson Smith stated that the Commission would now consider text amendments to the Zoning Code concerning adult oriented businesses. Mr. Walker stated that Staff recommended that there be an amendment of Section 34-10 of the University City Zoning Code by adding definitions of the terms Adult Business, Adult Entertainment, Adult Motion Picture Theater, Adult Theater or “”“”“”“ Adult Entertainment Cabaret, Adult Entertainment Studio and Sexually Oriented Material and ”“”“” further recommended an amendment of Article 5 by adding Division 34-67 establishing adult business regulations. Mr. Walker stated that the Staff recommendation for these amendments derived from the its review of many studies which analyzed the secondary effects of adult businesses. The matter of first amendment rights concerning adult oriented businesses was reviewed by Shulamith Simon, City Attorney for Zoning Issues. Staff presented its report which summarized such studies. On the basis of such studies, Staff concluded that adult businesses have significant adverse effects, including increased crimes, which particularly target vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, children and women. In K:\WPOFFICE\WPDATA\m-5-22-2002.plc.wpd