2000-11-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

November 8, 2000 Plan Commission Minutes Page 3 of 6 Robinson, 8671 Barby, stated that she was concerned about construction dust, traffic on Barby, that property taxes have increased and that rubbish and trash are left at or near the bus stop. Drew Arbore, 8678 Barby, stated that he is concerned with the increased traffic on Barby, people not stopping at the Barby stop sign and wanted to know if the applicant would eliminate the Barby entrance to the facility. Pauline Jenkins, 8682 Barby, wanted to know if this was as far as the development would be going up Barby. Vera Collins, 8639 Barby, asked why Mr. Deutsch did not buy up the whole street. Mr. Deutsch stated: he does not have long term plans to development more property in the area; he would do whatever he could to reduce dust like spraying the dirt in the area and work with Ms. Union on schedules; described the view Ms. Union would have from her house; he would landscape on the north side of the property; would have “residential” type lighting on the north side of the property, like lampposts; would not permit deliveries to the front entrance; that according to University City ambulance records there would probably be less than 3 calls per month to the new facility; that he planned to start construction next summer and be finished within 12 months of that start date; that he agreed that a trash container should be placed near the bus stop; that he would be against eliminating the front entrance on Barby; would be against having the traffic commission review the plan, instead he would be willing to provide a traffic study; he was not sure exactly how the procedure for elimination of medical waste was handled but knows that they comply with state requirements; and that he feels that traffic at the intersection is not a problem and that traffic generated by the front entrance will not be a problem. No other members of the public indicated a desire to speak and the public hearing portion of the meeting was closed. Ms. Glassman asked whether a traffic study could be done. Mr. Walker stated that a traffic study should be done by the applicant to be approved by the Director of Planning and Director of Public Works. The Plan Commission determined that the evidence presented to the Plan Commission does support the conclusion that the proposed conditional use amendment: a) Complies with all applicable provisions of the University City Zoning Code; b) At the specific location will contribute to and promote the community welfare or convenience; c) Will not cause substantial injury to the value of neighboring property; d) Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, neighborhood development plan (if applicable), and any other official planning and development policies of the City; and e) Will provide off-street parking and loading areas in accordance with the standards contained in Article 7 of the University City Zoning Code. Mr. Credit moved that the Plan Commission recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: K:\WPOFFICE\WPDATA\m-11-8-2000.plc.wpd