07/28/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1702, Minutes July 28, 1997 requires less than that. There are several different uses within the building, for example for assembly purposes it is one car for every live or six people present, for o,ice use it is one for every three people. This is directly related to people, but to square footage per person. The number agreed to is less than the ordinance would require for that number of people, but more than the total building would allow. The zoning ordinance, as you look at that building, could hold as many as two hundred people. That many people would require over one hundred spaces. There are not that many spaces, so with the number that they do have, titty four spaces, staff worked backwards. Eighty seemed to be a very good number. Mr. Schoomer asked the City Manager if this calculation compromises any provision for growth or success resulting from the use of this facility. Mr. Ollendorffresponded that there was no growth beyond the eighty. The number that they have agreed to does allow for some growth. Presently, twenty five to forty people have been seen at their existing facility at any one time during the day. Responding further to Mr. Schoomer, Mr. Ollendorffsaid that special event parking would delinitely overttow into the neighborhood. The applicant has been in touch with other neighborhood institutions to coordinate overflow parking by using others parking areas. It is conceivable that on the six times per year that there could be substantially more cars than the litty-four parking lot could hold. Mr. Wagner said that he was ready to welcome the Church of Scientology to University City, His only reluctance being the issue of payment in lieu of taxes. He is willing to take Ms. Sargeant's statement at face value that she will enter into discussions in good faith. Mr. Wagner emphasized that this is in no way mandatory, but just a request that we enter into discussions as the City would be losing revenue when and if they purchase the property. Mr. Wagner moved approval of the site plan. Mr. Ware seconded the motion. Mr. Schoomer said that he was opposing the measure. He believes that this proposal does not meet the requirements of the code and is not in the public's interest. He believes it would contribute further to a vastly overloaded area and create problems for the neighbors, their values and the quiet enjoyment of their homes. Mr. Schoomer asked for a roll call, due to a division of the house. Ayes: Mr. Ware, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Ueberman and Mayor Adams. Nays: Mr. Munkel and Mr. Schoomer. The motion carried 4 to 2. AGENDA ITEM #5 - CONDITIONAL USE - 7500 DELMAR: Mr. Ollendorff reported that the Plan Commission approves and recommends, as well as staff, the approva~ of the proposal to rehab the existing building at 7500 Delmar, adding a masonry exterior and an addition on the west end, similar to an addition that was approved but not built by a previous owner. Approval should be with conditions to protect the neighbors and assure that everything would be built in accordance with the approved plans. Landscaping sha~l be installed in accordance with an approved plan. Parking will be limited, especially overnight, to the area south of the building and west of the east building wall. The automotive business and service will be limited to the inside of the building. The operating hours will be limited to 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m.. Recognizing that both Hanley and Delmar are county roads, staff wants to point out that St. Louis County Highway Department permits would be required. The City would like to see all of the paved surfaces repaired or replaced and that all signage complies with the City sign code. With these conditions, approval is recommended by the Plan Commission and Mr. Ollendorff agrees with the recommendation. Mr. Ware moved approval of the conditional use permit in accordance with the outlined Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Munkel seconded. Mr. Lieberman said that he did not have the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting, but he was present and remembered that the closing should be 8:00 p.m., not 8:30 p.m. Secondly, Mr. Lieberman said that there was another condition in the Planning staff report that was accepted by the Planning Commission and that was that the two driveway entrances closest to the intersection should be removed and replaced with curbing and sidewalks. Mr. Ollendorff said that he purposely lett it out of his agenda report, because the applicant has since submitted a revised plan which shows both driveways closed, so it no longer had to be stated as a condition. Mr. Ollendorffsald that Mr. Lieberman was correct in that