1988-04-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . Minutes - Plan Commission Page 5 April 27, 1988 with the property up to this point in time. He stated that he and Mr. Bruno had been involved with many rehabilitation and historic preservation projects in the City of St. Louis, and it was their expert opinions that the existing Hanley Jr. High School building could not be used in an economically feasible way for any proposed use. This was also an opinion shared by other developers they had consulted. A further change in the tax laws in 1987 had removed many of the incentives to rehabilitate any building. It was Mr. Conner's and Mr. Bruno's plan to extend Balson Avenue into the Hanley site and develop a mixed-use office, retail, condominium and single family home development on the 14 acre school property. The development would include private streets and lots on which "for sale" housing would be built. All units would have off-street parking within enclosed garages. The developers envisioned reclaiming a portion of the flood plain, but four acres of open space nearest the River des Peres would be maintained for recreational uses for the development residents. Mr. Bruno detailed the site plan which had been submitted to Plan Commission members before the meeting and explained that the single family homes would be located on lots designed in a zipper configuration with entrances to the garages from the alley. Trash removal would also be accessed from the alley at the rear of the homes. Mr. Bruno briefly reviewed the changes required by the St. Louis County Highway Department regarding Hanley Road as well as the site plan and elevation drawings for the proposed project entrance and retail portion of the site. Both Mr. Conner and Mr. Bruno explained that the local market for attached and detached single family homes would require buffering of the units from Hanley Road and that the office/retail development along Hanley had been designed to accomplish that goal. Chairman McCauley asked Mr. Goldman to address the issues cited in his report on the application. Mr. Goldman explained that the issue before the Plan Commission at this time was the conditional use application for 53 single family, detached dwellings. He stated that the "PR-O" Planned Residential-Office zoning designation on the property allowed attached single family dwellings, condominium dwellings and offices as permitted uses, and that the retail use could only be authorized by the City Council after a Site Plan Review. Mr. Goldman recommended that with regard to the single family homes and the lots on which they would be located that the plan be revised to increase the width of the tree lawns, increase the width of the front yard areas, provide a standard 50' right-of-way for the streets, increase the size of the end lots, provide pads in the alleys for the refuse boxes, provide alleys with no deadend, describe in detail the nature of the open space development and provide detailed landscaping plans for staff review and approval. The two developers stated that the landscaping plan would be no problem for submittal to Planning Department staff at a later date. They did not have any formal plans for the open space, but would plant that space with grass and leave the decision of its use to the future residents. Mr. Bruno stated that the alleys could terminate with space for adequate vehicle maneuver- ability, especially for City emergency vehicles. An increase in the size of the corner lots could be attained. Mr. Bruno did disagree with Mr. Goldman's recommendation that the single family homes be similar to "patio homes" as described in the "LR"-Limited Residential District Regulations as well as the recommendation that the tree lawns be increased to a width of 4'6". Mr. Conner stated that the 2'6" tree lawn that had been proposed would be planted with small ornamental trees, such as ornamental fruit trees, and that it was not designed to accomodate large shade trees. The 50' standard right-of-way width for the streets could be achieved, however.