1985-12-18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Minutes - Plan Commission Page 4 December 18, 1985 traffic, parking and delivery trucks in the area would reduce property values of single-family homes. Next to speak was Mr. Gene Tishler of 8655 Barby Lane. He, too, was under the impression that this was a retirement home for older adults living independently, but now a nursing home facility for assisted care had been added. He asked for some assurance that traffic generated by the project would be controlled. Ms Cook left at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Ollendorff stated he felt the project was a good one for University City and that the conditions set out by the staff were in accordance with the Zoning Code. They were standards of minimum and maximum requirements and that a general discussion of each of the recommended conditions should take place. He stated that his greatest concern was access to the site, setback, lot coverage and general density of the project. Chairman Hamilton began a discussion of the listed conditions, the first being the concern over direct vehicular access provided to Delmar from the site via public street. He stated that University City could not depend on having McKnight Road open from Ladue so the Commission must consider alternative access to Delmar. Mr. Ollendorff stated that the condition over access to this site was a concern of previous proposals on this site. Mr. McCauley and Mr. Rice expressed their concerns about the city and the developer working out plans for access to Delmar and the timing of this agreement with the development of the project. Mr. Goldman stated that the most workable solution would be for public access to be planned between the Manmartre and Attache buildings. Mr. McCauley suggested that the first condition be included in the recommendations to the City Council provided that agreement can be reached between the developer and the city for public access from the site to Delmar Boulevard. Mr. Smith felt that the requirement of 72,500 square feet of commonly usable residential open space would not be a problem given the use of balconies and the inclusion of land east of the roadway by the Innerbelt. Commission members agreed given the inclusion of the strip east of the roadway by the Innerbelt. Commission members agreed to delete the site coverage requirement. They agreed with Mr. Smith and Mr. Deutsch that the land east of the roadway by the Innerbelt was part of the aesthetics and buffering of the project from surrounding area. Both the developer and commission members agreed that the setback of the buildings should be at least 15 feet from driveways and parking areas except that the setback could be reduced to 10 feet for portions of buildings not containing living quarters. The staff requirement for the 20 foot wide densely landscaped yard be provided between the retaining wall along the property at 8637 West Kingsbury and the sidewalk was changed upon agreement with the developer to a 15 to 20 foot wide densely landscaped yard.