1989-10-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes - Plan commissio~ Page 2 October 25, 1989 . The Chairman asked Al Goldman, Director of Planning, to present the staff report on the application. Mr. Goldman explained that the property is located in the "GC"- General Commercial District requiring a Conditional Use Permit for the outdoor storage of motor vehicles. The application did not indicate a use for the 10,000 square foot building on the property. Mr. Goldman stated that the property is located on a portion of Olive Boulevard that will contain the highest concentration of retail activity on Olive Boulevard once the Westover Center is completed. A quasi-industrial use such as the outdoor storage of motor vehicles, albeit new ones, will not contribute to the retail character of the area and will send a conflicting signal to potential investors and developers. Mr. Goldman did not believe that any evidence had been presented in the application which would support a finding that the proposed use at this location would contribute to and promote the community welfare and convenience. Also, he found no evidence that the proposed use would not cause substantial injury to the value of neighboring property. Mr. Goldman recommended denial of the application. Chairman McCauley asked if any members of the public had questions or comments to present as a part of the scheduled public hearing. No one was present to comment on the application; however, the Chairman noted that earlier in the day, planning staff had received a letter from Mr. Max Malz, Director of Real Estate for Steak 'n Shake, Inc., with a location immediately east of 8144 Olive Boulevard, at 8128-32 Olive, opposing the application. In his letter Mr. Malz listed several reasons for his company's opposition to the application including the height of the proposed fence which would serve to block the traffic's view of the restaurant, an increased probability of traffic accidents due to the sight blockage by the fence and delivery of vehicles to the neighboring site, and an inconsistency with the retail nature of that area of Olive Boulevard. Chairman McCauley then closed the public hearing. Mr. Rice arrived at 7:40 p.m. Chairman McCauley asked if Commission members had questions regarding the application. Mr. Kendall asked if Family Chevrolet had a fence enclosing the vehicles stored at its Clayton location. Mr. Steiner replied that there was no fence at the Clayton location, but stated that the Clayton central business district was a more protected location. Ms. Kreishman stated her preference that no fence be erected on the front of the property. She went on to state that she could not support an application for vehicle storage in this location, but in response to a questions by Mr. Steiner, indicated her preference for a new car dealership rather than a vehicle storage facility. Mr. Goldman gave a partial history of car dealerships on Olive Boulevard explaining that none had been located in University City for many years. He further explained that the Zoning Code and permit review procedures had been oriented to minimize the impact of used car sales along Olive. Chairman McCauley reiterated Mr. Goldman's comments and noted that in recent years only one car sales business had been approved for Olive, mainly because its business was limited, specialized and, for the most part, the vehicles were stored off-premises. Mr. Safe arrived at 7:50 p.m. After a brief discussion, Ms. Kreishman moved that the Plan Commission recommend denial of the application for Conditional Use Permit #278. Mr. Kendall seconded the motion. The Chairman suggested to Mr. Steiner that if a University City location were