1982-09-20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1315, Minutes Page 11 September 20, 1982 6. Free standing sign to be not more than 40 square feet. Sign application to be applied for, and signs must conform to Zoning Code. 7. Hours of operation to be 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Mr. Ollendorff said he and the staff did not concur with the Plan Commission's rec- ommendation (which was on a four to three vote), believing the business was not in keeping with sound residential development in that part of the City. He said there was no need for this type of operation nor was it of benefit to the City or to the neighborhood. He recommended denial. Mr. Adams said he was liaison to the Plan Commission when they voted to deny the ap- plication the first time it was received. He said residents of the area were op- posed at that time and he believed they still were. Mrs. Metcalfe, current liaison to the Plan Commission, said it would be helpful to the Council for the City Manager or staff to review why -this was before the Coun- cil, i.e., what a conditional use permit is as distinguished from site plan review under the zoning laws. Mr. Ollendorff asked Mr. Goldman to comment. Mr. Al Goldman, Director of Planning, said the reason this was before Council was that an automobile service station was currently operating at this location, which is legal but nonconforming. If a change is contemplated, it must come before the Council since it has lost its standing. He said the applicants came to the Plan Commission with a number of alternatives, including remodeling the existing sta- tion so that it may sell commodities other than gas, or erection of a new building (as was submitted earlier and rejected). He said a conditional use permit was re- quired. The Plan Commission accepted the alternative of the new building, but the staff did not agree. Mr. Ollendorff pointed out that a conditional use should con- tribute to and promote the community welfare and convenience, and the burden was on the applicant to prove to the Council that the proposed use would do that. In response to Mrs. Metcalfe, Mr. Goldman enumerated the other criteria which must be applied to a conditional use under the Zoning Code. There was discussion. Mr. Levy asked Mr. Goldman to elaborate on a statement made earlier that the activ- ity generated by this project might have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Goldman said activity relating to late-night hours might adversely affect the neigh- borhood because those station are sometimes the target of robberies. This generally disturbs the neighborhood where they are located even if the neighborhood isn't af- fected directly. Mr. Schoomer said he presided over the initial hearings on this matter at the Plan Commission meeting some time ago, and petitions were submitted on the part of the neighbors who were opposed. Mr. Goldman said some of the neighbors were upset at the first hearing, partly because of a mechanic whom they wanted retained; however, this was not at issue at the second hearing, and there was no public testimony. He noted the same mailing list of addresses was used at both hearings, with those liv- ing within 185 feet notified, as required. Mr. Robert Koster, attorney with offices at 1600 S. Hanley, representing the owner, Cities Service Corp. (CITCO), asked to address the Council. Also present was Mr. George Stock, civil engineer at Becker Engineering Company, who is working with