1988-02-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 5 February 24, 1988 provided at the rear of the building; the parking would be changed from that proposed on the site plan in order to provide the minimum four spaces required by the Zoning Code. Ms. Price continued by saying that the applicant intended to fence or landscape the area behind the garage which abutted the single-family property to the north and would plan to consult with their residential neighbor about the kind of buffer which was mutually agreeable. She stated that Mr. Chambers had had previous experience in the automobile business with his proprietorship of a limousine service in Clayton, and he currently ran another successful small business in Tennessee. She stated that there was no other business in University City which could offer brokerage of specialty vehicles of this kind. She felt that the proposed service would be a convenience to individual members of the community. Ms. Price detailed Mr. Chambers response to the Planning Director's recommendations on the application. Mr. Chambers could comply with all the recommendations. Chairman McCauley asked Mr. Chambers and Ms. Price to respond to any questions from Plan Commission members. Mr. Goldman asked Mr. Chambers if he proposed to protect the parking area by the use of bollards with connecting chains or with a chain link fence. While some confusion ensued during the discussion regarding the difference between chains and bollards and chain link fencing, it was decided that Mr. Chambers proposed to use chains and bollards to protect the property and section off the display area. Ms. Kreishman stated that chain link fencing would not be appropriate. Ms. Elwood stated, however, that the type of fencing or buffer to be used between the commercial property and the residential property to its north could still be considered by the Planning Department, the applicant and the northern neighbor. Mr. Goldman stated to the applicant that if adequate parking was to be arranged for customers at the rear of the building, the spaces would need to be 9'xI9' and should be arranged at a 900 angle to avoid cars having to back out on to the street. Mr. Goldman asked Mr. Chambers if he was a licensed broker for cars in other states. Mr. Chambers stated that he was a licensed broker in Tennessee, but did not need any type of licensing for this type of business by the State of Missouri. Mr. Kendall noted the public's tendency to park in front of stores along Olive Boulevard even though this was not permitted. He suggested the use of a sign to indicate that parking should take place at the rear of the building. Mr. Marsh asked about the proposed office operation of Chamber's Enterprises. Mr. Chambers indicated that he would be an on-site manager with one secretary to begin with and eventually a maximum of 4 to 5 employees if the operation was successful. Mr. McCauley asked if any members of the public had any questions or concerns about the application. June Goldman of 1215 Mt. Olive Avenue stated that her property abutted the location in question to the north. She had no particular objections to the application but noted that there might be a potential parking problem in conjunction with the day care center across Mt. Olive Avenue if the applicant did not provide adequate parking or display area for their cars on site. She stated that many teenagers lived in the neighborhood and that the applicant would be well advised to protect the cars by either keeping them in the garage or fencing them in. She stated that she would like to see some kind of