1990-01-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1511, Minutes Page 5 January 22, 1990 BILL NO. 7943 - PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION TO THE QUALIl.uD VOTERS OF UNI- VERSITY CITY AMENOME'flS TO THE CHARTER OF SAID CITY, TO BE SUBMITTED TO SAID ELECTORS AT THE GENERAL ELECTION APRIL 3, 1990. Bill No. 7943 was given its second reading. Bill No. 7943 was given its third reading. Mr. Wagner moved that this bill be adopted as an ordinance. Mr. Schoomer sec- onded the motion. Upon roll call, the following vote was recorded: AYES: Councilmembers Thompson, Price, Adams, Wagner, Schuman, Schoomer, and Mayor Majerus. NAYS: None. Bill No. 7943 became Ordinance No. 5736. Mr. Mark Gale, 8250 Groby Road, asked to address the Council prior to the sec- ond and third readings of the next bill (No. 7945) . He asked that the word "additions" be replaced with the word "amendments" in Section 2 of this bill. His concern was that "amendments" could be interpreted so to change the bound- aries of the parks, and said he understood it was not the aim of the bill to provide for changes that reduce the park map. Mrs. Elsie Glickert, 6712 Etzel, said a parcel on the northwest corner of Kingsland and Olive is, not designated as a park on the map, and she thought it should be. It was created by a modification that eliminated a dangerous con- dition at this intersection, she said, and it has been maintained by the City since then. She asked that the parcel be preserved as a park strip, especial- ly since Olive needs esthetic improvement, and that it be included on the map. Mrs. Thompson asked why this parcel was not included on the map accompanying Bill No. 7945. Ms. Glassman said it has never been considered by the Park Commission or City as permanent green space. It resulted from a road improve- ment, and the City recently tried to beautify it so it would be an asset, but there was never any determination that it was to be left an open area perma- nently, and it is not appropriate to recreation of any sort. She said all de- velopment along Olive is required to have landscaping, but the Comprehensive Plan doesn't show this area as being maintained indefinitely with no other use. Mr. Price asked Ms. Glassman what protection the City had to make certain this particular corner was upgraded in case of development. Ms. Glassman said any development plan using this or adjacent property would come to the Council for site plan review and would include a requirement for a landscaping plan from the developer. She said the City awns the property, which is currently zoned General Commercial, not Public Activity (which denotes parks, schools, etc.) . Responding to Mr. Price, Mrs. Glickert said this lot constitutes a neighbor- hood entrance and should be esthetically pleasing. She suggested there was no current interest in developing this area of Olive, but neighbors contributing to the tax base deserved an attractive neighborhood entrance. She noted that a future City Council could do whatever it wanted with this parcel, but if it was included in the park map, that could not happen. Mr. Adams pointed out that this lot could not be included in Bill No. 7945 now because of the way it is zoned; changing the zoning requires a fairly lengthy process of referral to and consideration by the Plan Commission, a public