Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes - Plan Commission <br />Page 4 <br />June 26, 1991 <br /> <br />to conditions on signs, landscaping, State licensing, regulations for delivering children to the <br />inside of the building, a requirement for the day care to operate in conjunction with the church, <br />and limitations on the area of the building devoted to day care use. <br /> <br />Vice Chairperson Marsh then opened the public hearing. Mr. Nathanel Harris of 8341 Fullerton <br />spoke first. He stated that he fully supported the application of the church and felt that this was <br />the best thing that has happened to this property in years. <br /> <br />Ms. Hazel Erby of 8340 Fullerton asked the applicant to state the number of children that will <br />be cared for at the facility. Vice Chairperson Marsh called upon the applicant's representative, <br />Mr. Everding, who stated that the maximum would be in the range of 65 children and that they <br />will use the two former Kindergarten rooms for the day care activities. Ms. Erby stated that <br />she was in favor of the application. <br /> <br />Mr. Felix Panlasigui of 8247 Paramount stated that he was in support of the application. <br /> <br />Ms. Ruby Harris of 8341 Fullerton stated that she felt that traffic was not a problem. She had <br />lived there when the school was in full operation and noted that traffic was not a problem at that <br />time. <br /> <br />No other members of the public indicated an interest in being heard and the public hearing was <br />closed. <br /> <br />Mr. Safe asked the applicant if the recommended conditions were acceptable. Mr. Everding <br />answered that they were. <br /> <br />Mr. Kendall asked the applicant if there would be any demarcation between the church and the <br />park property. Mr. Everding answered that the church viewed the park as a major asset and <br />while they planned to landscape their property, they did not plan to put up a fence or otherwise <br />separate the two pieces of property. <br /> <br />Mr. Safe moved that approval of the application be recommended with the following conditions: <br /> <br />1. Signs on the premises shall conform in all respects with the provisions of the University <br />City Sign Code. <br /> <br />2. A detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Director of Planning for his review <br />and approval. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the <br />approved plan. <br />