1975-06-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1105, I.~nutes June 16, 1975 Page 6 they have made no independent traffic study. He said their concern, if any, was the impact or the shock loading of the ~]ursery School which is located immediately opposite the proposed building. He said their experience has sho~ that apartments for the elderly generate very f~ traffic elements and the ones which are generated are at off times, and therefore, in a positive way he did not consider that the shock loading of traffic that occurs at that l~ursery School would be inimicabl e to what the developers want to do. He said a circular drive will be designed to drop people off at the front entrance so therefore they did not consider the existing traffic patterns to be a problem to them. Councilman Adams quoted Condition No. 5 which appeared in the recommendation of the City Plan Commission: "The occupancy shall be limited to persons over 62 years of age." lie asked how this affects the handicapped, and lfr. ~cCor- mack said in a technical sense he would like that restriction to be re-worded. He said generally the definition of handicapped is 62 years of age or older - that restriction would make them ~3, at least, so that would be sort of bucking asainst the tide as to what is commonly known as the definition of elderly. With respect to handicapped, he continued, he would not want to have to turn ~ay a resident that is considered desirable merely because of a handicap. He said that restriction would require them to do this, and he would like to have it broadened to include the normal residential housing which is designed both for the elderly and for the handicapped. I{e said, in answer to Councilman Adams, that they would like to have handicapped under the age of 62. Councilman Grimm said he noticed there was a creek and this was discussed by Mr. ~Cormack. I~ said they propose to cover the open channel and utilize the surface for among other things parking, and other spaces. Councilman Grimm asked about the width of the streets, and ~. ~cCormack discussed this, again pointing out that he anticipates no parking or traffic problems. ~yor Kaufman asked what would be the maximum subsidy that they would be eligible to receive from the Federal government, l~r. ~!cCormack explained that in the St. Louis area they can house soraeone whose income is 80% of the median income in the St. Louis metropolitan area~ for two persons in St. Louis the median income is $G950 - 80% of that would be $7160 per year and that would be the maximum income that two parsons can earn; therefore, they would pay $149 a month under a lease directly to him a~d ~le Federal govern- ment would then pay him $151 for housing that person. He figured that one person would pay $117 a month and the government would pay him $183 a month. Mr. I4cCormack continued to answer questions, stating that he knows of no other building of this exact nature in the St. Louis area. Also, he said, the hallways would be broad and the elevators would be somewhat larger than a normal ~levator. l~ir. ~Cormack said he would like to make it clear that an F~L~ Insured Program is available to them and he said he now recalls that Heritage House was designed for the elderly and was financed under 231%~ich is a non-subsidized mortgage program. He said what he was suggesting is that he would prefer not to go that route, but would prefer to finance it conventionally. The following persons addressed the Council in opposition to the proposed project, and their primary reasons were that traffic will be increased, Barby Lane and ~Test Kingsbury streets are not designed for heavy equipment, there will be parking problems due to the employees parking. Further, that