1991-04-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 2 April 24, 1991 Chairperson Kreishman asked Mr. Goldman to review the Staff Report. Mr. Goldman stated that the application was first scheduled for a public hearing in March but was postponed at the request of the applicant. He commented that the Staff Report was based on a statement in the application that bar-be-qued meat would be prepared at another location and transported to the Olive Boulevard outlet. He stated that he was surprised to hear the applicant state that this was only a temporary consideration. It was pointed out that bar-be-que odors and smoke extending beyond the property line into the adjoining residential neighborhoods would not be acceptable and any other menu items including fried food could also present an odor problem if adequate provisions are not made for preventing the food preparation odors from drifting beyond the property line. Mr. Goldman commented on the sub-standard condition of the building and noted that the application contained no information on the building improvements that were planned by the applicant. He also commented that signage had been mentioned but was not adequately detailed in the application nor were there sufficient details on the design of the fence to fully review the appropriateness of the design. The Planning Department staff strongly recommended that only one vehicular entrance be provided from Pennsylvania via the alley north of the property and that the alley be paved for the full width of the property in accordance with City requirements. The Planning Department staff found the proposed landscaping lacking in design qualities and totally inadequate for the needs of the site. In terms of the scope of the landscaping, staff recommended that the complete corner of the property be filled with landscaping rather than merely a narrow strip. Mr. Goldman reported that the staff found the application and supporting material did not provide adequate evidence to support a conclusion that the proposed use will promote and contribute to the public welfare and convenience and will not cause substantial injury to the value of neighboring property. It was also reported that the lack of building improvements and lack of adequate landscaping was not consistent with the standards set forth in the 1986 Comprehensive Plan for Olive Boulevard. He further stated that unless additional evidence is provided at the public hearing, the Planning staff would recommend denial of the application. ,/ Mr. Kendall asked the applicants if they or the owner of the property are willing to spend the money to improve the property. Mr. Bell responded that he and his wife have already invested considerable money in improvements and have completed a lot of work in the building. Mr. Kendall said he was disappointed that the owner was not present at the hearing and thought that he should be involved in sharing in the cost. Mr. Bell answered that he and his wife were entering into a lease-purchase contract and would eventually own the property. Mr. Bell responded to the staff recommendations by stating that his family has had long-term experience in the bar-be-que business and that he and his wife have resided in University City since 1975 and were active in many civic activities including the sports association. He went on to say that "