1987-09-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 4 September 16, 1987 Mr. McCauley asked if any members of the audience had questions or comments regarding the proposal. Mrs. Geraldine Haitz of 7429 Olive stated that she had lived next door to the Shell Oil site for the last 39 years. She questioned the amount of improvements that could fit on the site and stated that there had been a lot of noise in the past from the car wash and late night customers. Mrs. Beatrice Koste, owner of the property at 7421 Olive, stated that snack food wrappers created a litter problem in the neighborhood; she was also concerned about the safety of children coming home from schools on Hanley Road. She and Mrs. Haitz had seen many near accidents. Mr. Michenfelder responded to these concerns by saying that the new Shell development would be less dense than the previous one; it would consist of only one canopy and no service bays. He stated that the food mart would be placed under the canopy, but the car wash would be rebuilt in the same location. He stated that litter was no more of a problem than that posed by the National Food Store across the street; it would be difficult to differentiate the litter created by Shell, National or any other business in the neighborhood. Mrs. Haitz asked Mr. Michenfelder about the increased traffic attempting to exit onto Olive Boulevard and proceed to the east. Mr. Michenfelder stated that although the median on Olive should prevent a left turn on to Olive, Shell could possibly add landscaping which would direct traffic to the west or add a "No Left Turn" sign at the easternmost exit onto Olive. Mr. Tom Kennedy of 7211 Dartmouth Avenue asked if it would be possible to reverse the traffic flow into the car wash by having the entrance to the car wash face Olive and the exit face the rear of the property. Mr. Michenfelder and Don Sissell stated that that option would stack traffic on Olive; it was preferable to stack traffic at the rear of the property and have people exit on to Olive after completing the car wash. Commission members asked additional questions of those representing Shell. Ms. Kreishman asked about the height of the canopy and the type of lighting that would be provided on the site. Mr. Sissell stated that the canopy provided a fourteen (14) foot-high clearance with an additional thirty (30) inches of fascia. The lighting was indirect emanating from underneath the canopy; it would not shine directly on adjacent property. Mrs. Haitz reiterated her concern over noise problems especially with regard to the proximity of the car wash to her home. She stated that her home was zoned commercial. Mrs. Elwood stated that although the zoning of Mrs. Haitz's home was not confirmed, the car wash was set back from the easternmost line of the Shell property to accommodate an adequate transitional yard between a residential use and a commercial use. Mr. Rice complimented Mr. Michenfelder and those representing Shell on a thorough and articulate presentation of the application for a Conditional Use Permit. He understood Shell's marketing decision to terminate the repair facility on the site and also understood that market conditions warranted a convenience store of this size on the site. He felt that as regards the community welfare, however, the Richmond Heights case was of little precedential value for University City. He stated that traffic flow and pedestrian safety, especially that of