1992-10-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ . . October 28, 1992 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 seasonal eyesore (which has also included plant sales in the spring). This proposed resumption of Christmas tree sales at this location is not consistent with the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan and should not be permitted. Mr. Goldman recommended denial. Ms. Kreishman asked if the members of the Plan Commission had questions for either the staff or the applicant. Mr. Marsh asked Mr. Grady if there had always been a restaurant operation in connection with the tree sales in the past. Mr. Grady replied that he had originally run a convenience store on the property for the first eight of the past ten years and had sold the trees in connection with that use of the property. The restaurant use in connection with tree sales had only occurred last year. Mr. Grady further stated that the business license requirement for selling the trees had always been waived in the past because he gave City Hall a free tree. He disputed that the trees' storage and sales were an eyesore. He also stated that the tree sales benefitted the community by bringing in out of town purchasers. Ms. Ratner stated that she felt the application was procedurally inappropriate because this hearing was amending the Bell's use permit and they were not here to state their opinion. Mr. Hill stated that he had mailed the Bells a copy of the public hearing notice, he had talked with the Bell's on the phone about the hearing and that they were also written a separate letter specifically encouraging them to come and represent their interest in the hearing. It was verified that the Bell's have a lease with Charles Grady for the use of "6985 Olive" which refers to the entire lot. Mr. Hill sated that Mr. Grady was a proper party to apply, because Mr. Grady has an interest as owner with a land contract from Roszell Johnson, 4362 Enright, St. Louis, MO 63108. Mr. Hill had previously verified these facts by phone call to the County and to Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson was also made aware of the hearing by that phone call and was mailed a public hearing notice. Ms. Ratner stated that she felt Mr. Grady should have had a separate application instead of an amendment. Mr. Goldman replied that it was the City's position that Conditional Use Permit #294(A) governed the use of the whole property and any proposed change of the use as granted under that permit would be an amendment to the current use permit. He pointed out that a conditional use permit governs the use of the land and the permit goes with the land. He further stated that as owner of the property, Mr. Grady has standing to apply for a conditional use permit or permit amendment. Therefore, the Planning Staff's opinion is that this application for amendment was appropriately filed. It was suggested by Mr. Kendall and Mr. Grady that Mr. Bell be called to the hearing to testify to his opinion of the amendment. Mr. Grady further stated that he had spoken with Mr. Bell just prior to the hearing; Mr. Bell was aware of the hearing and Mr. Bell had stated that he approved of the amendment. Mr. Marsh stated that bringing Mr. Bell to the hearing would be a waste of time, because Mr. Marsh plans to deny application whether or not Mr. Bell approves of it. Mr. Marsh stated that the Plan Commission and City Council, through the last Conditional Use Permit Amendment, condition 14, had previously decided that the two uses, the restaurant and tree sales are not compatible at this location; nothing presented at this hearing changes that. Mr. Safe stated that m-10-28.plc