1991-01-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Plan Commission M~tes January 23, 1991 Page 8 . uses, it should not be divided into smaller parcels for small-scale development. (p.38). Secondly, the 1989 Olive Boulevard Commercial District Plan projects that development of the Mercy High School si te should stimulate development in the area; in fact, the District Plan states that seven nearby sites with long-range development potential depend on the successful use of the Mercy site. (p.25) . Finally, in order to encourage high-quality development and protect surrounding residential uses, no access to the entire site or any part of the site should be permitted from Vernon Avenue. Mr. Goldman felt that while the proposed project was of a high quality for this type of development, it was not the type of development nor the layout of development envisioned by the Plan Commission when it wrote the 1986 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Goldman did state that if the property were ultimately rezoned, the city would have to approve the subdivision of the property. Enough land would be left under the proposal to provide parking for whatever use the existing school building would be put. commission members discussed the proposed design and construction of the proposed self-storage buildings. Chairperson Kreishman asked if the Commission had any questions of the applicant or his representatives. Mr. Foxworth asked if this were not the type of development proposed when a property owner was seeking to "land bank" a piece of property. Mr. Sandlian replied that with a $1 million investment in property improvements, his company could not afford to land bank the property. Furthermore, this project would not be built to provide a tax shelter for anyone or any company. Ms. Ratner reviewed with the applicant specific findings of the market study, and learned that Sandlian Investment proposed two other self storage facilities in the st. Louis area, one in North County and one in South County near I-44 and Big Bend Boulevard. Mr. Goldman asked if the appl icant knew what Evergreen Developments, Inc. planned to do with the school building. Mr. Sandlian and Mr. Feder did not know what the other parcel would be used for with the building deteriorating as it is. Chairperson Kreishman asked for clarification of certain site development issues including property line setbacks, driveway widths and the varying sizes of the proposed storage buildings. Mr. Safe expressed his opposition to the application for rezoning as well as to any proposed subdivision of the site. He continued by stating his opinion that the City should be looking for desirable long-term development proposals critical to a developed city with little remaining land available for development. He felt that the current "PR-O" zoning designation was appropriate for the property and the type of development desired by the City in this location. The parcel should not be divided. Mr. Sandlian replied that the city could wait many years for an alternative to his proposal and that with the money the property owner would realize on the sale of 4 acres to SandI ian, he could better afford to do something with the remaining property. Mr. Marsh and the Chairperson agreed with Mr. Safe. They asked Mr. Sandlian if he and Mr. Murr had located any other properties appropriate to their marketing plan in University