My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1975-06-16
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
1975
>
1975-06-16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/6/2004 2:50:23 PM
Creation date
11/22/2004 3:11:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
6/16/1975
SESSIONNUM
1105
TYPE
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Session 1105, ifinutes <br />June 16, 1975 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />drainage requirements - the City of St. Louis has a major water line running <br />throu~ the properties and these restrict the buildable area that they have <br />on this site. t~ said ~le conditional variation they are requesting would <br />be relating to the covered parking shelters which are located against the <br />Innerbelt gxpressway and here they are proposing a 5 foot setback because <br />the Innerbelt Expressway has a substantial amount of green space prior to <br />hitting the pavement. <br /> <br />i~. Henmi said as far as the traffic considerations are concerned, they feel <br />that the apartment building for the elderly ha~ about as minimal as possible <br />vehicule requirement, and experience has indicated a one to four ratio would <br />be quite adequate for most locatinns. As far as visitors are c~ncerned~ he <br />said they f~el the apartment building being what it is, that is, a residential <br />structure and not an institution or sanatorium, will mean that visitors will <br />be disbursed throughout the week and throughout the day and there will not <br />be a shockload at any time similar to hospitals, etc. which restrict visit- <br />ing hours. He added that they do not believe, generally speaking, that <br />traffic is going to be a problem. He said they are aware that there is some- <br />what of a restricted entry from i~%ni~t Road south one way with the exiting <br />traffic going out either West ~ingsbury or Barby Lane to ~ingdel and up to <br />Delmar. <br /> <br />During questioning which foll~d, ~. I~nmi answered numerous questions <br />posed by members of the Council. He maid 97 bedroom units and 11 two bed- <br />room units ~i~ra l~ropoocd to develop 10~ units. Councilman Grimm asked him h~ t <br />they determine the degree of handicap and this wa~ answered by l~. ~Cormack <br />who said they would be people who primarily would be under tile age of 62 <br />which defines elderly, whose handicaps are such that they can live complete- <br />ly independently and can take care of themselves. He said the building is <br />not a nurming home, and in response to Councilman Lieberman, he said there <br />would be ramps and also some bathrooms would be designed so that a person <br />confined to a wheelchair could have ingress and egress to the bathroom. <br /> <br />~,~yor ~aufman asked what other studies were done to warrant the construction <br />of this unit. ~ir. ~cCormack said the principal concern they have as devel- <br />opers is the fact that there is a need and ~Hlether they can translate that <br />need into amarket. The ~fayor asked whether tile waiting lists are all in <br />the same rental category that he is proposing. ~fr. I~Cormack answered that <br />it would be their intention to utilize the provisionm of Section 8 to rent <br />the units and he explained that under Section 8 it would be possible for a <br />tenant to pay him under an independent lease $150 a month and the federal <br />government would pay the remaining $150 (for a $300 apartment). He said if <br />he pref~r~, all 10~ units can Le under the re~t subsidy. <br /> <br />Answering a question by Councilman Werner, ~r. }.1cCormack said that the de- <br />velopment is partly contingent upon the Federal government accepting this <br />under Section 8 and l~Ir. [1cCormack discussed the procedure followed for <br />University City's Community Development Act program. Councilman l~rner <br />asked ~ether the project is contingent upon approval by both the City of <br />Ladue and University City, and ~. ~{cCormack answered that it is not. He <br />explained that they included that property which is physically within the <br />City of Ladue because it is property that they ~-m; he said the City Plan <br />Commission requested that the developers include that property is in the <br />City of Ladue. He said that from the developer's point of view, the project <br />probably stands alone without that property, but they wish to include it be- <br />cause it is property that they <br /> <br />Councilman ~erner raised the question of traffic, and Mr. ~Cormack said <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.