1975-06-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1105, ifinutes June 16, 1975 Page 5 drainage requirements - the City of St. Louis has a major water line running throu~ the properties and these restrict the buildable area that they have on this site. t~ said ~le conditional variation they are requesting would be relating to the covered parking shelters which are located against the Innerbelt gxpressway and here they are proposing a 5 foot setback because the Innerbelt Expressway has a substantial amount of green space prior to hitting the pavement. i~. Henmi said as far as the traffic considerations are concerned, they feel that the apartment building for the elderly ha~ about as minimal as possible vehicule requirement, and experience has indicated a one to four ratio would be quite adequate for most locatinns. As far as visitors are c~ncerned~ he said they f~el the apartment building being what it is, that is, a residential structure and not an institution or sanatorium, will mean that visitors will be disbursed throughout the week and throughout the day and there will not be a shockload at any time similar to hospitals, etc. which restrict visit- ing hours. He added that they do not believe, generally speaking, that traffic is going to be a problem. He said they are aware that there is some- what of a restricted entry from i~%ni~t Road south one way with the exiting traffic going out either West ~ingsbury or Barby Lane to ~ingdel and up to Delmar. During questioning which foll~d, ~. I~nmi answered numerous questions posed by members of the Council. He maid 97 bedroom units and 11 two bed- room units ~i~ra l~ropoocd to develop 10~ units. Councilman Grimm asked him h~ t they determine the degree of handicap and this wa~ answered by l~. ~Cormack who said they would be people who primarily would be under tile age of 62 which defines elderly, whose handicaps are such that they can live complete- ly independently and can take care of themselves. He said the building is not a nurming home, and in response to Councilman Lieberman, he said there would be ramps and also some bathrooms would be designed so that a person confined to a wheelchair could have ingress and egress to the bathroom. ~,~yor ~aufman asked what other studies were done to warrant the construction of this unit. ~ir. ~cCormack said the principal concern they have as devel- opers is the fact that there is a need and ~Hlether they can translate that need into amarket. The ~fayor asked whether tile waiting lists are all in the same rental category that he is proposing. ~fr. I~Cormack answered that it would be their intention to utilize the provisionm of Section 8 to rent the units and he explained that under Section 8 it would be possible for a tenant to pay him under an independent lease $150 a month and the federal government would pay the remaining $150 (for a $300 apartment). He said if he pref~r~, all 10~ units can Le under the re~t subsidy. Answering a question by Councilman Werner, ~r. }.1cCormack said that the de- velopment is partly contingent upon the Federal government accepting this under Section 8 and l~Ir. [1cCormack discussed the procedure followed for University City's Community Development Act program. Councilman l~rner asked ~ether the project is contingent upon approval by both the City of Ladue and University City, and ~. ~{cCormack answered that it is not. He explained that they included that property which is physically within the City of Ladue because it is property that they ~-m; he said the City Plan Commission requested that the developers include that property is in the City of Ladue. He said that from the developer's point of view, the project probably stands alone without that property, but they wish to include it be- cause it is property that they Councilman ~erner raised the question of traffic, and Mr. ~Cormack said