PL MINUTES 11031986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- • 1 - why, with all the new residents in this project, the commercial had not been 2 retained; 3 - what financial obligation the City of St. Anthony would be incurring with 4 this project; 5 6 - whether another elevator per building would be added if the project returned 7 to senior rental alone; 8 - why notices of this hearing had only been sent to property owners within 9 300 feet; 10 11 - why the citizenry hadn't been informed about this project as they are about 12. other City issues in the Newsletter. 13 14 In response to the question about the notice of the hearing, Mr. Childs indicated 15 that notice had been mailed the distance required by state law. However, 16 because the Council realized the issue might be of great community interest, 17 the Bulletin reporter had been requested to write an article on the matter 18 as a way of informing the general public about the changes the developer 19 was requesting from the project the City had approved December, 1985. The 20 article had run on the first page of the Bulletin October 22nd in the same 21 issue as the notice of the hearing had been advertised. The timing for the 22 Newsletter which went out with the water bills had not been right to insert 23 an article. 24 25 ARCHITECT'S RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC 26 • 27 - the plan had ,42% landscaping, 35% pavement, and the rest tied up in building 28 area so nearly half of the site is open space; 29 - developers are. not eliminating seniors from the project, just concerned 30 there might not be enough seniors to fill up two buildings; 31 32 - families are not expected to rent these units mostly because the rents are too 33 high - more geared to professionals; 34 - the fact that there were so many present that evening proved the intent had been 35 to involve the community in the planning. Any further changes would require 36 another public hearing before both the Commission and Council ; 37 38 - a sedimentary drainage pond was planned for the middle of the site to drain 39 rainfall away from both Lowry and Kenzie Terrace; 40 - after being involved in many subsidized projects, the public can be assured 41 "this -building will, never be subsidized" mostly because it is being financed- 42 under a market rate condition which doesn't meet any of the requirements 44 for subsidization whatsoever. In most cases, that provision is made a part of 4 5 the Developer's Agreement; and the building had never been designed for 4 5 that type of rentals. 47 MR. ARKELL'S RESPONSE TO OTHER ISSUES RAISED 48 49 - observed he had heard the public first say "families couldn't afford the 50 rents in these buildings" and then "there would only be families living 51 there", if people other than seniors were allowed to live there; 52 • 53 - said developer just wanted to be certain senior rentals were the best way to 54 go and had reservations about that when only three persons in a group com- 55 prised mainly of seniors had indicated they would be interested in living in 56 these buildings;