1987-06-24 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 7 June 24, 1987 Mr. Sommers had contacted several construction companies with previous condomInium experience. Mr. Sommers indicated that no independent appraisal or Economic FeasIbilIty Analysis had been conducted by a lender or other party regarding this project. Mr. Sommers mentioned that he had current optIons on the five properties and may assign them to another developer for economic reasons. Mr. Ollendorff stated that other developers of sItes in University City had completed market analyses before Plan Commission and CIty Council revIew and he felt an MAl analysis should be done. Mr. Marsh suggested that an MAl appraIsal be completed regarding absorption rates of condominiums In the UnIversity City market. Mr. Marsh asked Mr. Sommers if Mr. MIller was a trained appraiser. Mr. Sommers replied that he was not. Mr. John Cohen, project architect, reviewed with Plan Commission members a preliminary sIte plan and elevation studies for the proposed project. He stated that the proposal Included a three story building over an Indoor parking level and the units would be mixed between one, two and three bedroom models. There would be approximately 40,000 square feet of floor area including a 48 car parking garage. Mr. Cohen elaborated on the financial feasIbilIty of the project: $110 a square foot would be a "break-even" sale prIce for the project. From his experIence, UniversIty City condominiums could not command the same sellIng price per square foot as a Clayton condominIum project. Chairman McCauley reviewed the Director of Planning's memorandum to the Plan Commission dated May 21, 1987 regarding the site plan and elevation studies for the proposed project. Mr. Goldman had stated in that memorandum that the site would be compatible wIth development that is taking place in Clayton, but compatIbilIty wIth the property on Donne Avenue would depend on the nature of the project and design. He stated that while the drawIngs gave the general sense of the project layout, they did not contaIn enough informatIon to make a detailed, final revIew. The buIlding elevations and massing needed more study. In accordance with a current market study and adequate financial feasibility information, a final recommendation by Planning staff would be made. Chairman McCauley asked Mr. Sommers about the extent of hIs site control. Mr. Sommers revealed that he was party to current optIon contracts on each of the five properties and that Ms. Elwood had copies of each contract. Ms. Elwood emphasIzed that she did not have copies of the contracts, but had seen each contract as evidence of site control on May 18, 1987. Chairman McCauley asked Mr. Sommers if he had receIved any comments regarding general neighborhood sentim.nt toward his proposal. Mr. McCauley expressed his concern that no one from the neighborhood was present to ask questions or voice concerns about the proposal. Mr. Rice asked about the topography of the site. He noted that the elevation depicted the buIlding .uch higher than the property immediately to the north of the project on North and South Road. ChaIrman McCauley expressed his concern over Mr. Sommers proposed intent to assign the project to another developer. He stated that specIfIc conceptual site plans should be processed concurrently with a developer's application to rezone property as stated in the Intent and Purpose sectIon of the "PD"-Planned Development District regulations. Mr. McCauley stated that other proposed projects for the "PO" District had provided professional market information, economic feasibility information and more specific site development plans to the Plan CommIssion and CIty Council. Mr. Ollendorff stated that the 1986 Comprehensive Plan designates this section of North and South Road as appropriate for condominium development based on good qualIty, detailed plans. Mr. Ollendorff stated that neither he nor Planning