Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4-27-94 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Page 3 <br /> <br />A review of the preliminary development plans indicates that the site is not large enough for the <br />57 dwelling units shown and the value of abutting single family residential property located on <br />Saleen Court, Anrose Drive, and Burch Lane will be threatened by the unbuffered parking and <br />activity areas along the southern portion of the site; and the proximity of the driveway east of <br />the existing building. In addition, despite the developer's optimism, he does not believe it will <br />be economically feasible to develop the existing building as a two story structure. Accordingly, <br />he does not recommend the proposed rezoning on the grounds that it is not supported by an <br />acceptable development plan. <br /> <br />However, the new plans submitted tonight have eliminated the second story of the main building <br />thus reducing the number of apartments to around 40. Mr. Goldman questions whether 35-44 <br />apartments are feasible economically. <br /> <br />Mr. Thomas replied that he feels 44 units are economically feasible based on St. Louis County <br />financing. He emphasized that any deficiencies in the building plans will be addressed during <br />the site plan review and building permit processes. The emphasis now should be on the rezoning <br />itself. <br /> <br />Mr. Marsh asked Mr. Goldman if he had reviewed the newly submitted plans. Mr. Goldman <br />stated he has generally and feels they are much more workable than anything submitted so far. <br /> <br />Martin Spizman, current owner of the site, encourages the Plan Commission to approve the plan <br />because the residential use is the best for this site. <br /> <br />Mr. Solodar stated that screening and buffering should be a priority. Ms. Peniston stated that <br />landscaping will be important in that aspect. Mr. Safe stated that he still major problems with <br />the plan; he will support the rezoning but feels it has been poorly proposed. Ms. Ratner stated <br />that she is comfortable with the "MR" designation for this property. Mr. Marsh agreed. <br /> <br />Ms. Schuman asked why this zoning would be good for this property, particularly in light of the <br />recent decision to rezone the lot across the street to "GC" - General Commercial. Ms. Ratner <br />stated that there were three reasons she felt this rezoning was appropriate for the lot at 7400 <br />Olive. First, the lot is deep with the rear portion being surrounded by residential property. It <br />is more important to preserve the residential area than to increase the "GC" - General <br />Commercial along Olive. "GC" does not have to be preserved. Second, the current staus of <br />the property is a dual zoning. She is uncomfortable with that situation and feels that if the city <br />was legally challenged for having two zoning districts on one lot, it may result in the whole lot <br />being zoned "GC." Finally, the presence of the cemetery has made the lot difficult to develop <br />for anything and the proposed zoning change is necessary to accomodate proposed development <br />of this site. There has been enough abandoned property on Olive not to miss the opportunity <br />here if a viable site plan is presented. <br /> <br />m-4-27.plc <br />