Kirkwood City Council Denies Special Use Permit for U-Gas

The lightning bugs in a north Kirkwood neighborhood will still be roaming free after a city council meeting Thursday.

The council unanimously voted to deny a special use permit for a proposed U-Gas Station at 915 N. Kirkwood Road, agreeing with a planning and zoning commission recommendation to deny it and citizens who had voiced opposition.

Some of the resistance came from an unlikely pair – two girls, Samantha and Carter Radman, ages 11 and 7. They spoke at a meeting earlier in the month and again on Thursday, arguing that the development would, among other things, hurt their ability to see lightning bugs.

Several members of the council took the chance prior to voting to explain why they were against the proposal and cited a number of factors, including a traffic study that raised several access issues. Its impact on property values and location in such residential area were also cited – as was its interference with local insect life.

“I think it is too intense for the neighborhood,” Mayor Arthur McDonnell said. “And, also, you might harm the lightning bugs.”

Council member Nancy Luetzow acknowledged that the high amount of traffic on Kirkwood Road and Manchester Road just to the north made it a great location from a business perspective, but said the kind of gas station/convenience store proposed would cause “undesirable impacts.”

“The round-the-clock operation certainly will generate air, noise and light pollution,” she said.

Popular opinion also appeared to be against the project. Several council members acknowledged that they had received emails in opposition or been approached by residents concerned about the development.

At the meeting Thursday, Kirkwood resident Ruth Baldwin urged the council to consider it as an environmental issue. A science teacher, Baldwin said the city does not need another gas station and pointed to studies that show they increase the levels of the toxic chemical Benzene in the air nearby.

“If we are going to be environmental stewards, we need to put our money where our mouth is,” she said.

The move does not close the door on developing the property, however. In voting no, Councilman Paul Ward said they needed to “respect the property owner,” who he indicated was a local resident.

“We need to not let this languish. We need to be active in finding out what would fit,” he said.

After the council’s decision, a woman who identified herself as a co-owner of the property declined to give her name, but suggested there would be future attempts to develop it. “There’s always a ‘Plan B,’” she said.