2006-01-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

January 25, 2006 Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 13 Item 6 ofthe City Council proposed revisions was discussed. Ms. Ricci indicated that the proposed change from "surrounding" to "existing" was insubstantial. The two terms had essentially the same connotation. Plan Commission agreed that the proposed change was not necessary. Item 12 of the City Council proposed revisions was discussed. The changed from Millbrook to Forest Park Parkway was incorporated into the plan. Item 39 of the City Council proposed revisions was discussed. It was decided that the statement should be changed to read. . . "Seek out new ways for W ashington University to recompense to offset property not taxed." Some discussion of imposing additional development restrictions on Washington University ensued. Items 43, 44, and 45 of the City Council proposed revisions were discussed. It was decided to change 7334 Forsyth Avenue on Map 25, redevelopment area 22 to the designation an "Area redeveloped since the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update" and to remove 7346 Forsyth from the areas designated for redevelopment. 7334 Forsyth has been developed recently and 7346 Forsyth is in good condition. Councilmember Wagner indicated that City Council questioned the inclusion of 7336 Forsyth in the redevelopment area as it is a good mixed-use land use. Plan Commission recommended keeping this property in the redevelopment area as the building meets some criteria for redevelopment. The discussion turned to Attachment 2, the staff recommendations. Items 9, 10, 19,20, and 57 of the City Council proposed revisions, which relate to the infill review board concept, were discussed. It was established that Plan Commission had made their recommendation to City Council about this concept at the January 4 Plan Commission meeting, where the motion to establish an infill review board failed by a vote of 3-3. Ms. Borg reiterated that she agreed with the concept of an Infill Review Board and would like to include that item in the Comprehensive Plan Update of2005. Other Plan Commission members restated that this issue had been discussed at previous Plan Commission meetings and the decision must now be left to City Council. Plan Commission agreed to defer to City Council regarding the infill review board. The Plan will be revised to include the infill review board concept only if City Council votes to create such an entity. Item 23 of the City Council proposed revisions was discussed. Staff's objection to the proposed revision to". . . invest in developing marketing programs for University City in support ofthe economic development organization. . ." was that while the Economic Development Organization should support housing marketing efforts, it is more appropriate for the City to invest in its own efforts. Councilmember Wagner indicated that Council's intent in making the proposed revision was to have the City support the Economic Development Organization's efforts, rather than eliminate the City's efforts. Plan Commission agreed to include a statement that both the City and the Economic Development Organization should undertake in marketing efforts. Items 30 and 34 of the City Council proposed revisions were discussed. Plan Commission agreed that the "development organization" should be private as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan Update of 2005,