1996-01-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1658, Minutes January 22, 1996 Page 5 next year's money. As for demolition, there are no buildings ready to be demolished in the next 60 days, so the money must be used for something else. There was further discussion, and Mr. Ollendorff explained that Community Development money cannot be carded over; if not contracted for or spent by the deadline, it is lost. Mayor Adams closed the public heating at 7:59 p.m. Mrs. Thompson moved approval. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion, and all voted Aye. SITE PLAN - 7400 OLIVE The City Manager recommended that the site plan for 7400 Olive be denied on the basis that it is not an acceptable design for use of this property. There is too much development/redevelopment on a parcel of this size and shape, and there are legal shortcomings with regard to zoning that cannot be overcome without a basic redesign. Required amenities such as parking, refuse storage, buffering and usable outdoor space cannot be adequately developed with so much land devoted to buildings. Also, the large number of residents contemplated (70-140) need more space, more convenience, easier access, and less crowded conditions. While portions of the site plan comply with City ordinances, and the applicant has endeavored to make everything fit, the overall result is not a high-quality project. Adjustment of minor details or clarification of missing items will not solve the inherent problems. The applicant requests a Council decision now in order to decide whether to proceed with financing applications on this plan. Mr. William Thomas, advisor to Louis Aboussie, sponsor of Hanley-Olive Apartments, 7400 Olive, said when the application for rezoning was submitted, it was indicated that the existing building would be rehabilitated and 20 townhomes built on this site. He said Council approved the Plan Commission recommendation for rezoning; the developer then proceeded to develop a project that would provide affordable housing using a complicated financing procedure, which he described. He did not understand how this project could be considered to be anything less than high quality. He noted that without the special financing, rents would have to be at least twice the proposed amounts. He asked that Council give the site plan favorable consideration. Mrs. Schuman said she was liaison to the Plan Commission when rezoning was requested and this plan was presented. She said members had grave concerns about the plan and especially the density, but they felt, as did the Council, that this particular site should be rezoned residential. She felt that all involved were operating in good faith but pointed out this is an extremely difficult site, and Mr. Goldman's careful analysis of the site plan is indicative of the problems that exist here. Mrs. Thompson moved approval of the site plan, and Mr. Cotton seconded. Mr. Cotton said he did not understand the reservations about approving this plan and also felt the developer had made more concessions than the City had. He noted that the applicant agreed to build