1986-02-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Minutes - Plan Commission Page 2 February 26, 1986 ownership of an entire center in order to ensure proper maintenance and upkeep. He noted other similar projects sponsored by the Midland Group in the St. Louis area and throughout the United States. He noted to commission members the employment and revenue advantages this project could bring to University City. Chairman Hamilton called on Mr. Goldman to comment on the rezoning request. Mr. Goldman stated that the issue at hand was a conceptual one concerning the change in the proposed use of the parcel from those which would be compatible with the surrounding uses. Previously proposed commercial uses for the property had not been economically feasible. The economic benefits in the way of sales tax revenues would be of little help to the city since the city is part of the tax pool. The impact on city services such as police and fire would be similar to that of other uses. The Plan Commission had previously discussed a hierarchy of compatible uses for the property which consisted of office uses, multi-family apartment or condominium uses, with retail and commercial uses being the least preferred. In sum, Mr. Goldman stated that he saw no need to depart from this previously delineated hierarchy. Commission members had many questions for the representatives of the Midland Group. Chairman Hamilton expressed his concern regarding the two proposed outparcels and asked if those parcels would be developed simultaneously with the shopping center or would be developed later under a site plan approval. He asked what specific proposed uses for the outparcels would be. Mr. Murtha replied that fast-food restaurants would be unlikely uses and suggested that a sit-down restaurant and/or a drive-in bank would be possible uses of the outparcels. Chairman Hamilton reminded Mr. Murtha that for any drive-in facility the developer must obtain a conditional use permit. Ms Cook noted that there were two supermarkets within a quarter mile of the proposed project and that there were three more within a half mile. She asked Mr. Murtha if he thought University City really needed any more supermarkets. She voiced her objection to the type of use proposed in this essentially residential neighborhood. Mr. Murtha replied that the supermarkets presently located in University City did not have the same level of products and services and were much smaller than the one proposed. Ms Schuman and Chairman Hamilton noted that the building was designated as historical and was listed on the National Register of Historic Buildings. Mr. McCauley asked Mr. Murtha about the Midland Group's relationship with the with the Kroger Company. Mr. Murtha stated that they had built other stores across the United States for the Kroger Company and that typically Kroger would hold a 25 year lease on the building or one lease with 25 years worth of options. Mr. McCauley asked what the Midland Group would do if Kroger ever closed their operation at this location. Mr. Murtha stated that the Group had an investment in the rest of the property and would work hard to find a new tenant if Kroger closed. He stated that the Kroger Company did have the right to stop operating at any time. Mr. Goldman asked if any Kroger store had been in one location for a 25 year period. Mr. Murtha stated that the Kroger Company had stayed in many locations for over 25 years, but did not cite any specific examples.