Laserfiche WebLink
Studio, one of the project architects, were all present. The public hearing notification <br />criteria for reviewing Conditional Use Permits and amendments (Zoning Code Section <br />400.2720). <br />Mr. Greatens provided an overview of maps and images of the site and surrounding area. <br />Ms. Qualls and Mr. Hoover explained the proposal to reuse the existing building (formerly <br />office-warehouse for McCarthy Spice Co.) for a child care center. Improvements to the site <br />would include a play area to the rear of the building, new landscaping, and one-way traffic <br />circulation with entrance-only from Olive Boulevard and exit-only onto the adjacent alley. <br />The play area would be fenced. There were parallel parking spaces proposed on the private <br />property, adjacent to the alley. Ms. Qualls stated the proposal was to move their current <br />locations, one in University City and one in Olivette, to this location once completed. <br />Questions / Comments and Discussion by Plan Commission <br /> <br />-Some members of the Plan Commission had concerns about the width and use of the alley, <br />location of the proposed parallel parking spaces, proposed fencing, play area, and vehicular <br />access to the alley. The applicant stated that the parallel parking spaces were on the private <br />property, not encroaching onto the alley. <br /> <br />-There was concern about the amount of room that vehicles from the residential properties <br />would have to back out if they parked their vehicles in the rear yard, adjacent to the alley. <br />Staff stated that the issue was discussed with Department of Public Works and Parks staff. <br />The proposed development would allow sufficient room for vehicles to back out, if they use <br />their rear yard for parking. <br /> <br />-The number of parking spaces provided if the facility were to reach capacity, which was <br />stated as 128 students, and parking for any special events was discussed. The applicant <br />stated that the proposed parking would meet their needs. They already reached out to the <br />surrounding businesses and if there were any special evening programs in the future, they <br />intended to discuss such matters with adjacent property owners. <br /> <br />-The potential for additional traffic on the alley was discussed. There was concern about <br />vehicles exiting the property in winter months and the impact of headlights on the residential <br />properties to the north. Members discussed options for additional buffering for the <br />residential properties and use of signage to address traffic flow onto the alley. <br />The Chairperson opened the public hearing. <br />Jeff Hales, 7471 Kingsbury Boulevard Mr. Hales stated he was a member of the <br />University City Traffic Commission but was speaking as an individual, not a representative <br />of the Traffic Commission. He had concerns about the proposed ingress and egress, parking, <br />and potential traffic issues. He requested that the Department of Public Works and Parks <br />would bring this item to the Traffic Commission for review. <br />With no other members of the public requesting to speak, the Chairperson closed the public <br />hearing. <br />tğŭĻ Ћ ƚŅ Ў <br /> <br />