1982-11-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1319, Minutes Page 3 November 22, 1982 1. All building occupants, including the owners and related entities, must conduct their business in such a way as to avoid exacerbating the park- ing situation in the building's neighborhood. 2. All building occupants, including the owners and related entities, must be tenants which have a low volume of visitors and limited off-site parking needs. 3. Any sign is to be limited to one free-standing identification sign, in- stitutional in character, not more than 25 square feet in area, and not more than 3 feet, 6 inches above grade. 4. The building's exterior is to be developed in conformity with the plans and specifications submitted to the Plan Commission, specifically in- cluding the provision of 17 on-site parking spaces. Mr. Ollendorff suggested an additional condition, that of limiting occupancy to architectural and advertising offices, together with related and compatible uses. He recommended approval. Mr. Lieberman asked for a report from either the staff or developer outlining the work which will be done in this building. Mr. Ollendorff said a report, including a description in some detail of proposed plans was sent to Council several weeks ago. Mr. Lieberman said he thought a resume of what will be done with the property should be in the record. Mr. Ollendorff pointed out that the Council could adopt the plan as submitted, and it then becomes part of the record. Mr. William Obrock, 9701 Litzinger, proposed developer of 6900 Delmar, was asked to come forward. He said the church would be converted to an office building. He described the two floors of the building and outlined the changes which will be made to transform the space to offices, pointing out that there are some areas of deterioration in the building. He also noted that extensive landscaping will be done. His company, which is composed of professional people (scenic artists, copywriters, architects, engineers, graphic and commercial designers, etc.), will occupy much of the space and the rest will be rented. He said his business was a service business, with the workers going to the public instead of vice versa. Mr. Obrock expressed concern about the additional condition recommended by Mr. Ollen- dorff, pointing out that restricting the building to architectural and advertising uses would make it extremely difficult to finance, since a lender would think it was too restrictive and too specialized to finance such an undertaking. He noted the fifth condition had been discussed at the Plan Commission meeting, and the Com- mission decided not to include it. Mrs. Thompson questioned this restriction also, and wished to know who would make the decision as to whether or not a proposed use was compatible, pointing out that it might require an attorney. Mr. Ollendorff said that was correct, but the build- ing should not be open to any kind of use which someone chose to call an office use, since it could be almost anything. He said a tenant who brought in a lot of foot traffic and parking would not be considered compatible, although if the owner thought it was compatible, then perhaps attorneys would have to decide the issue. Respond- ing to Mr. Schoomer, Mr. Ollendorff said the Zoning Administrator would make the ini- tial decision as to whether the use was compatible.