1987-02-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 2 February 25, 1987 Mr. Lerman's use of the property was not a "new development." Although Section 34-38.6d of the Zoning Code calls for a twenty (20) foot wide landscaped yard where the rear or side wall of any non-residential structure is located directly across the street from the front yard of a residential structure, such was not the case here. The apartments across the street on Westgate Avenue did not have front yards facing Mr. Lerman's property. The front yards of the apartments face inward away from Westgate Avenue. Mr. Goldman responded, however, that the apartment property did have frontage directly across the street from Mr. Lerman's property. Mr. Fanchi stated that he believed that the suggested transitional yard requirement was not economically feasible. Mr. Rice expressed his concern that no suggestion of a twenty (20) foot wide landscaped yard had been made to the applicant prior to Mr. Goldman's memo dated February 18, 1987. Mr. Goldman replied that the transitional yard would be required of any similar new development; he felt that Mr. Lerman's change in use of the property at 6504 Olive Boulevard should be treated as any new development. He thought that the landscaping requirement was a logical extenion of the requirement in Section 34-38.6d of the Zoning Code because the side wall of a commercial building would be less objectionable than the outdoor storage use proposed here. Chairman Hamilton stated that he had hoped for a proposal including a substantial landscaping screen which would compare to the standards of the nearby Cunningham Industrial and Olive/Skinker Business Parks. The Commission members asked several questions of Mr. Goldman and Mr. Fanchi. Ms. Schuman asked if the replacement slats for the fence would be redwood panel weave or a metal matching in color for the weave. Mr. Fanchi replied that the slats would match the existing slats and would be metal in material and "redwood" in color. Ms. Schuman also asked how far the trailers would be moved from their present location if they were restricted to the western one hundred and fifty (150) feet of the property. Mr. Lerman replied that the trailers would be moved at least two hundred feet west of where they are presently parked. Mr. Rice asked Mr. Goldman if the juniper screen, as proposed, would be effective along Westgate Avenue. Mr. Goldman stated that such landscaping would become effective over time, but that rows of staggered trees in a 20 foot wide landscaped yard would provide better spacial conditions. Such a proposal, however, would not be inexpensive. Mr. Kendall asked Mr. Lerman how long it would take him to complete the proposed landscaping and other improvements. Mr. Fanchi said that he and Mr. Lerman had requested that the Conditional Use Permit be in effect until the end of 1988 since the total cost of the landscaping and repairs would range from $9,000 to $11,500. Ms. Elwood stated, however, that according to Section 34-65.8 of the Zoning Code, Conditional Use Permits are valid for a period of six months unless all the necessary permits are obtained and work is commenced. Any extension would need the approval of the City Council. Mr. Kendall asked Mr. Lerman about his plans to keep his business in University City. Mr. Lerman replied that he had invested a substantial amount in his properties in University City and hoped to remain a vital part of its