1990-12-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1533, Minutes Page 3 December 10, 1990 Key Equipment Company $11,500 $2,900 $14,400 There are no known minority or female suppliers for this equipment. The City now has more than 800 Rand containers in service, and the Sanitation Division's supply of extra lids and parts for these containers will not fit Teem brand units, therefore, it was recommended that the bid of $14,040 from Downing Sales & Service, Inc. for Rand Champion containers be accepted. Mr. Schoomer moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Mr. Adams seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - EASTGATE-WESTGATE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN The City Manager said a public hearing was set for 7:30 p.m. this date to consider proposed amendments to the Eastgate Westgate Urban Renewal Plan that will bring the plan up to date and clarify the objectives of the Redevelop- ment Authority, especially with regard to the use of eminent domain. Mayor Majerus opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. There were no requests to speak, and the public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. She noted that the amendments were aimed at resolving the problems of the Tivoli building. The Mayor asked that the appropriate bill be prepared. LIQUOR LICENSE - 8406 OLIVE/ROYAL (MESE BBQ The City Manager said Council recently postponed approval of a liquor license application for the Royal Chinese Barbecue, 8406 Olive because the restaurant had not been in operation for the usual six-month observation period. The applicant requests a review of this decision, pointing out that he has oper- ated similar restaurants with liquor licenses in Hazelwood and St. Louis for several years. The police investigation reveals a clear record, and further, there have been no problems since the restaurant opened in University City on September 26. Mrs. Schuman said she generally agreed there should be a six-month waiting period, but in view of the applicant's experience running other restaurants with liquor licenses, she would follow the wishes of the Council majority. Mr. Wagner agreed the applicant has an impeccable record, but felt Council's longstanding policy of requiring a six-month waiting period had strong merit and should not be ignored. Mr. Adams reminded Council that the rationale for the waiting period was to ascertain that the operation will be a restaurant and not a bar. He noted there have been a few waivers of the policy in recent years, and he felt this case deserved one. Mr. Schoomer agreed there has been occasional deviation from the policy, and he believed that was merited in this instance.