My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2010-10-27
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Plan Commission
>
Minutes
>
2010
>
2010-10-27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2010 4:27:53 PM
Creation date
4/27/2011 11:04:34 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />-Ten acres provides some security against development that will not fit the development <br />principles being drafted by the Joint Redevelopment Task Force. <br /> <br />-The Resolution approved by City Council specifically states 10 acres. <br /> <br />-The minimum acreage may change when the Joint Redevelopment Task Force drafts a <br />permanent version of the Overlay District language. <br /> <br />-This Overlay will allow one year for the JRTF to finalize the development plan for the <br />area. <br /> <br /> <br />-The Olivette side and the University City side are different from each other. Should the <br />same regulations apply to each side? <br /> <br />-This temporary language will help to ensure that anything that occurs within one year <br />will fit with the redevelopment principles. <br /> <br />-The Plan Commission has no authority to change the 10 acre minimum. It has already <br />been established by Council. <br /> <br /> <br />-What about tax revenue? <br /> <br />-The sales tax in Olivette is based on point-of-sale. University City is a pool community. <br /> <br />-It appears that Olivette has more incentive for development, yet at the same time more <br />risk. <br /> <br />-Olivette has more risk for development to occur prior to development principles for the <br />area to be finalized. <br /> <br /> <br />-Discussion about long-term goals vs. short-term goals. <br /> <br />-Whether or not there is current development pressure in the area, the intent is to be <br />prepared when development pressure does arrive. <br /> <br />-Establishing development principles and processes will help each municipality be able to <br />move forward with more ease when a developer proposes something new in the area. <br /> <br />The presentation concluded with a recommendation of the next steps. The JRTF would like for <br />the Plan Commissions of both communities to recommend approval of the JDD at the next <br />possible business meeting. The recommendation will then be forwarded to City Council for final <br />adoption. <br /> <br /> <br />Adjournment <br /> <br />There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm. <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />October 27, 2010 Plan Commission Minutes <br />Q:\WPOFFICE\Zoning_June2009_present\Plan Commission\Minutes <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.