Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Questions / Comments and Discussion <br /> <br /> <br />-Plan Commission members discussed and asked about the impact of the proposed <br />substation including safety and maintenance issues. The applicant stated that the existing <br />components are old and unreliable. The new equipment would improve restoration efforts <br />and be easier to maintain. The existing substation was nearing the end of its expected life <br />expectancy and was obsolete. <br /> <br /> <br />-Plan Commission members asked about why the existing residential structure could not be <br />kept and discussed the appearance of the proposed substation. The applicant stated that the <br />existing substation design created issues with clearance and access to equipment. The <br />proposed substation design would allow for improved maintenance. The applicant also <br />stated that due to size of the current trucks, more turnaround area was needed. The new <br />design would also meet the new requirements for clearance and access of equipment. It <br />was also pointed out that the new equipment must be installed behind the existing structure <br />prior to removal of the existing equipment. <br /> <br /> <br />-Plan Commission members also discussed safety issues and the proposed landscaping. The <br />applicant stated that spill containment would be enhanced with the new substation. The <br />landscaping shown was not final and the applicant stated they would work with the City <br />and residents to install the appropriate landscaping. <br /> <br />Public Comments <br /> <br />Ms. Ann Harris 1005 Raisher Drive, expressed concern about safety of students from nearby <br />Brittany Woods Middle School. She also had concerns about asbestos removal from the <br />current structure and stated that the existing structure fits into the neighborhood and would like <br />the new façade to look like a home. <br /> <br />Mr. Douglas Parham 8039 Groby Road, stated that the proposed enclosure was inadequate <br />and inconsistent with the surrounding community. He stated that not many residents attended <br />the September 22 meeting at the site. He stated that it was still possible to create a structure <br />comparable to what was there now. He also stated that not enough residents were notified <br />about the proposal and alternatives ought to be discussed. <br /> <br />Mr. Greg Grunst 945 Gay Avenue, stated most people did not know this is a substation and <br />he expressed concern about the proposed exterior. He agreed with the proposal for upgrading <br />the equipment but asked why the existing façade could not be replicated. <br /> <br />Mr. Oliver Willingham 947 Mulberry Lane, stated he would like the proposed structure to be <br />similar to the existing and does not want an industrial appearance as proposed. <br /> <br />Ms. Elsie Glickert 6712 Etzel Avenue, stated she did not live in the neighborhood of the <br />substation but stated the substation had been part of University City for many years and <br />remembered when it was installed. She stated that it was not easy, but the idea of the house <br />around the substation made it more attractive. <br /> <br />Mr. Abe Adewale 8286 Tulane Avenue, stated that the existing substation fit with the <br />neighborhood and helps to keep value of homes up in the area. He stated that alternative <br />solutions should be considered for a more fitting façade, not so industrial. <br /> <br />tğŭĻ Ћ ƚŅ Џ <br /> <br />