1991-08-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. .UlcS - Plan Conunillion, August 28, 1991 . The Chairperson asked the members of the Commission if they had questions for Mr. Goldman about his staff recommendation. Mr. Price inquired about the length of time the operation had been in existence. Mr. Goldman replied that it had been in operation for years, twenty according to the applicant. Mr. Price and Mr. Kendall asked about the purpose of the perimeter wheel bumpers. Mr. Goldman explained that perimeter wheel bumpers are standard for all parking lots for protection of the public at the sidewalk. Mr. Goldman further stated that All Saints used to have a fence erected along the southern edge of the parking lot but at some point it was taken down. Mr. Safe asked why the use was being brought before the Commission now if it had been in existence for twenty years. Mr. Goldman explained that the use had been brought to the attention of the former Zoning Administrator, Sally Ellwood and that she made a determination that the use required a Conditional Use Permit under the regulations of the University City Zoning Code. Mr. Safe asked whether parking bumpers would be required for only five parking spaces since that is all the use requires under the Zoning Code. Mr. Goldman explained that the Zoning Code requires wheel bumpers for all exterior parking spaces. Ms. . Ratner asked whether screening should be required since the use lasts for only 4-5 weeks. Mr. Goldman explained that the corrections needed to the non-conforming parking lot are on-going. A conditional use permit is a means for compliance. He explained that the conditions may be made over an extended time frame. The Chairperson asked for comments from the public. Elsie Glickert, a representative of the All Saints Church Parish Council, 6712 Etzel, stated that there actually were wheel bumpers on the part of the parking lot facing Clemens street. The other edge of the parking lot is protected by a fence and metal piping. She stated that fence facing Clemens was removed for aesthetic reasons. She stated that the Church was not planning to erect a fence along Clemens, but that they were planning to repave the parking lot in September. She stated that the use was temporary, involved no trucks, traffic nor interference with the quality of life of the area. She emphasized that the telephone books were distributed elsewhere. There was no further comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Price stated that the lot was already in compliance with perimeter wheel bumpers. Ms. Kreishman stated that the lot could be screened in various ways, either fence or landscaping. Shrubbery would actually enhance the look of the area. Ms. Ratner stated that an extended time frame for compliance should be granted to the Church. Mr. Goldman stated that a period of a year or more would be reasonable. Mr. Safe stated that the screening requirements are too vague and that enforcement is not specific. It was decided that the church should have until December 1, 1992 to comply with the screening condition. Ms. Ratner moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. No part of the building or parking lot shall be used for the storage or distribution of telephone books. 3