My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-01-25
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Plan Commission
>
Minutes
>
2006
>
2006-01-25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/23/2006 2:59:54 PM
Creation date
4/27/2011 11:04:21 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning
Document type
Minutes
Planning - Date
1/25/2006
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />January 25, 2006 Plan Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 4 of 13 <br /> <br />rather than "cooperative City/private". Item 34, the statement concerning "collect dues" was not a <br />significant issue and will be deleted. <br /> <br />Item 35 of the City Council proposed revisions was discussed. Ms. Borg would like the revision <br />. . . "Provide the resources necessary for a dedicated economic development professional within City <br />government focused entirely on economic development activities... to be included in the plan. She stated <br />that this recommendation came from the University City Advisory Board for Economic Progress and the <br />intent was to provide an additional staff member in the Department of Planning and Development for this <br />activity. Staff indicated that the organization of city staff is a function of the City Manager, as outlined <br />in the City Charter. It is not appropriate to include such a recommendation in the Plan or any <br />comprehensive planning document. With the exception of Ms. Borg, the Plan Commissioners agreed not <br />to recommend inclusion of the statement. <br /> <br />Item 40 of the City Council proposed revisions was discussed. Plan Commission members did not wish <br />to make the change "consider" to "ensure". They agreed that the recommendation to "... consider a <br />cohesive development vision and identity for the area..." with respect to the creation of an upscale <br />International District is more appropriate than to "... ensure a cohesive development vision...". This <br />concept needs to be further explored, with input from the public. "Ensure" is a commitment to the <br />concept. <br /> <br />There being no further comments, Ms. Ricci made a motion to accept staff recommendations as outlined <br />in the December 30,2005 memorandum to Plan Commission, with the following modifications: <br />· Regarding item 39 of the City Council proposed revisions, change to ..." Seek out new ways <br />for Washington University to recompense to offset property not taxed." <br />· Change 7334 Forsyth Avenue on Map 25, redevelopment area 22 to the designation "Area <br />redeveloped since the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Update" and to remove 7346 Forsyth from <br />the areas designated for redevelopment. <br />· Regarding item 23 of the City Council proposed revisions, change to "Support the marketing <br />efforts of University City Residential Services, the University City School District, an <br />economic development organization, and increase City public relations efforts in order to <br />attract investors, developers, home purchasers and renters." <br />· Regarding item 34 of the City Council proposed revisions, delete "collect dues and develop <br />fund-raising campaigns". <br /> <br />The motion was seconded by Mr. Myers and passed by a vote of 5 to 0 with all members voting "aye". <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.