1989-10-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes - Plan commissio~ Page 6 October 25, 1989 . After some further discussion, Mr. Safe moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval of Mr. Poirier's application for a second amendment of Conditional Use Permit #192A subject to the following conditions: Conditional Use Permit #192A shall be changed as follows: 1. A landscape strip no less than six (6) feet wide shall be provided along Hanley Road. 7. The exterior finish material on the north and east faces of the new bays shall match the remainder of the street facades of the building subject to the approval of the Director of Planning. Mr. Rice seconded the motion. Commission members were concerned that Mr. Poirier be fully aware of the potential requirements of the St. Louis County Department of Highways and Traffic. The members unanimously expressed that they were in agreement with the suggestions made by the County Highway Department and supported the condition set by Use Permit #192A which requires that permits be obtained from the County for modifications to driveway entrances, street curbs and sidewalks before a building permit is issued. The motion detailing the recommended changes to the first and seventh conditions of Use Permit #192A passed by a vote of 6-0. REVIEW OF RESOLUTION REFLECTING PLAN COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO 1986 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chairman McCauley noted that Commission members had received a draft resolution for their review which would serve to evidence their adoption of the May 24, 1989, amendments to the 1986 Comprehensive Plan. The Chairman also noted that members had received a proposal for some language changes from the City Manager dated October 18, 1989. The Chairman ruled that this agenda item should be postponed to the next Plan Commission meeting and directed planning staff to request that the City Manager be present at that meeting to explain his proposal. PROPOSED ZONING CODE AMENDMENT - DEFINITION OF RETAIL USE IN SECTION 34-36 Sarah Elwood, Zoning Administrator, explained that at its last meeting, the City Council had requested that Planning staff and the Plan Commission explore alternatives for a text amendment which would better define and explain the retail uses desirable in the Loop Business District. Ms. Elwood explained that the proposed text amendment distributed to Commission members for their review attempted to stress the difference between retail trade, i.e. retail sales of goods or merchandise for personal consumption, versus retail services which are generally viewed as offices and appropriate only for non-ground floor frontages in the city's Retail Commercial District. After a brief discussion regarding some minor wording changes, Ms. Kreishman moved that the Plan Commission recommend that the following proposed text amendment be adopted: