1991-01-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Plan Commission MtlRtes January 23, 1991 Page 5 . use proposed for the first floor of both buildings would require an additional 7 parking spaces. Although the Code does not require parking for convenience/service retail uses in residential buildings, certainly some personnel for these uses would require parking. Ms. Elwood further detailed the requirements for off- street loading areas. While the proposed plan provided for the correct number of spaces, they are not screened from the school property to the south. The screening of loading areas is required to be at least eight (8) feet in height and may either be a wall of masonry construction compatible with the building or landscaping. The loading area at the south side of the new building should be screened from the school property with adequate landscaping. Planning staff also recommended specific approval of the proposed floor area ratio, site coverage and commonly useable residential open space. Planning staff believed that the application complied wi th the requirements for approval of a Conditional Use Permit detailed in section 34-65 of the Zoning Code. Although the curb cuts as proposed created the possibility of vehicular and pedestrian conflict, the possible alternatives could present the potential for even greater conflict while minimizing good traffic flow through the site. The Chairperson asked if commission members had any questions of the developer or its representatives. Mr. Marsh asked if the School District was aware of the recommendations made by Planning staff since it was the legal applicant and owner of the property. Mr. Charles Faris, Assistant Superintendent of the University City School District, made his presence known and indicated the District's support of the application. Members had questions for Mr. Faris which included clarification of how the proposed parking lot for the apartment building would connect to the school district parking lot, if at all. Also, the developer stated that the current paved parking area on Lot 9 would be removed. A discussion of the parking needs for the project ensued with Mr. Safe stating that he believed the synopsis of parking needs presented by Trivers Associates was persuasive. Both Mr. Safe and the architect, Mr. Trivers, commented that parking should be maximized while attempting to minimize the amount of paving on the site. Ms. Ratner agreed that the garden areas proposed for tenant usage were well-planned and these should not be sacrificed for more paving. Mr. Goldman reiterated the Planning staff's concerns regarding parking requirements, explaining that should parking needs increase for any reason in the future, the site contained no possible provision for expansion of the parking area. Mr. Kendall asked if a decision on the height of the building was tied to the amount of parking one could reasonable arrange on the site. Mr. Morissey replied that the height of the building was based on the number of uni ts needed in the community. Mr. Foxworth asked about the differences in building ownership. Mr. Morissey stated that for the purposes of obtaining HUD funding, the buildings must be held in separate legal ownership, but, in fact, the buildings would be managed by the same organization and share kitchen, recreational