My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1990-08-27
Public Access
>
Boards and Commissions
>
Plan Commission
>
Minutes
>
1990
>
1990-08-27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/14/2005 4:46:26 PM
Creation date
4/27/2011 11:03:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Planning
Document type
Minutes
Planning - Date
6/27/1990
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Minutes - Plan Co~ssion <br />June 27, 1990 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />application lacked plans proposing any improvements to the property <br />or evidence indicating compliance with the standards for issuing a <br />Conditional Use Permit in accordance with University City Zoning <br />Code section 34-65. Mr. Buckner returned to the Plan Commission in <br />June of 1987 for reconsideration of his application. At this <br />meeting (See Plan Commission Minutes. June 24, 1987), the <br />Commission expressed reservations about the adequacy of on-site <br />parking and the ability of the applicant to demonstrate the <br />financial capability to carry the project through. The Plan <br />Commission and City Council approved the Conditional Use subject to <br />specific conditions regarding occupancy load, redesign of the <br />parking lot and its landscaping, review of exterior renovations by <br />the Historic Preservation Commission and deadlines for completing <br />the paving and landscaping. During the Summer of 1987, Mr. Buckner <br />applied for occupancy and building permits to complete the required <br />work and move his congregation. The occupancy permit was never <br />approved, and the building permit was eventually suspended because <br />the exterior work required prior to occupancy was never completed. <br />In the Spring of 1988, inspectors confirmed that the building was <br />being occupied by the Church for weekly services, and a notice of <br />violation was sent to Mr. Buckner and the church informing them of <br />the illegal occupancy. Mr. Buckner informed Ms. Elwood that he had <br />no intention of moving his church and requested an extension of the <br />Conditional Use Permit issued the previous year. In August of <br />1988, the City Council voted to deny the extension, and the City <br />continued court proceedings against the church. During the Fall of <br />1988, Mr. Buckner submitted various proposals for improving the <br />parking lot and landscaping and complying with building code <br />requirements for improving the exterior of the building. In <br />October of 1988, the City council approved the extension of the <br />Church's Conditional Use, having received indications that the <br />Church was committed to improving the property. The city Council <br />expressly included the condition that no further extensions of the <br />Conditional Use could be requested or considered. <br /> <br />Improvements were made to the parking lot, and the Historic <br />Preservation commission approved the exterior renovations to the <br />building in early summer, 1989. A building permit was issued in <br />August of 1989 for the exterior work on the building. City staff <br />believed that as long as the church was making progress toward its <br />goals, the city would cooperate in an effort to have an improved <br />building on Olive. However, in January of 1990, all permits <br />expired; no work had been done, and it was found that the Church <br />was occupying the premises without a permit. Ms. Elwood explained <br />that Reverend Buckner and his congregation had been cited several <br />times in recent months for occupying the premises without a permit. <br /> <br />Chairperson Kreishman called on Reverend Buckner to explain his <br />request. Reverend Buckner explained that he and his congregation <br />had not been in touch with the city regarding the Church's <br />violations because they had been busy raising funds for a <br />downpayment on the building. He stated that the congregation had <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.