Citation in context
October 18, 2016 — Meeting Minutes
Cited passage
10-18-16 BOA Minutes October 18, 2016 Page 5 of 11 and can respond. She is not comfortable with this discussion and thinks we have gone too far into this. Mayor Sanger stated that he thinks the issue is getting to a point of figuring out exactly what to do, whether to table the item or do something else. Bill Hoff, partner with Husch Blackwell, representating the Shaw Park Plaza owner, stated that he has appeared before the Board previously prior to Mr. Feder appearing. He is dismayed to hear Mr. Novelly state that he did not have their contact information because he was here in November and made it very clear that they were very interested in talking. Mr. Novelly mentioned meeting 10 – 12 times, which he cannot speak to all of those, but they (Husch Blackwell) has not been included in any of those meetings despite their requests to be so and he is at a loss. His client has not communicated to him that they have had significant conversations regarding the proposals that they have been working on, nor had a chance to have their parking consultant look at them. Mayor Sanger stated that this is quickly getting to the point where it is going to be altered as to what has been brought to the Board previously and perhaps there is a suggestion. Alderman Berkowitz moved that the proposed project is sent back to the Plan Commission for further review and decision. Alderman Boulton seconded. Mr.
The first gentleman moved on to a different account, they put another young woman on the account and she is now on maternity leave. Now there is a third party that he has yet to have conversations with. He confirmed that his 10 or 12 meetings were with Bento Kennedy – in person meetings and/or by phone calls. In response to Alderman Lintz’ question, Mr. Novelly stated that they have not submitted any different specifications to the actual building (office) plans that were originally presented and approved unanimously at ARB. Mayor Sanger asked if that would include not consideration of interior parking in the building. Mr. Novelly said that they have not put it in, they’ve considered it, they started with interior parking, but realized with 1,300 spaces that are empty it does not serve traffic, or economics, or anything. Alderman Berkowitz asked Mr.Novelly if what he is saying to the Board today is that he’s “stuck” and he is not sure where he is going with this. Mr. Novelly said that he doesn’t believe that is the case at all. He said that it’s interesting the segway that the Board has with Louie’s Wine bar of the parking for lease versus available parking for zoning because that is kind of what one of the issues that they are facing here. Available parking for zoning is dictated by a ratio of a particular number of spaces per 1,000 square feet. Alderman Berkowitz responded that he is aware, but what he believes Mr.
Available parking for zoning is dictated by a ratio of a particular number of spaces per 1,000 square feet. Alderman Berkowitz responded that he is aware, but what he believes Mr. Novelly is saying is that he would like the Board to change their minds or at least have them somehow “overlook” the requirements that are placed upon him as a developer. Mr. Novelly stated that he would like a reduced ratio similar to what Centene has done, both here and what the Pierre Laclede Center has and what Centene has done in the project that they are currently proposing. Alderman Garnholz commented that if the Board is tabling this item she would be more comfortable having these types of discussions when counsel for Shaw Park Plaza is present
Alderman Boulton seconded. Mr. Novelly stated that the SDD is very clear and that it is in the Board of Aldermen’s purview entirely and exclusively. Mayor Sanger stated that it may be in the Board’s purview, but they rely on the Plan Commission for recommendation purposes and he thinks what Alderman Berkowitz has said is that an important part of it has changed and that the Plan Commission should look at it again to make a recommendation. Because the recommendation that they made to the Board was not based on the information that is either available or has been acceptable to staff so that they can make a new recommendation to the Board. Alderman Berkowitz confirmed Mayor Sanger’s statement and added that the Plan Commission needs to take a hard look at what the state of affairs is with regard to the project and make recommendations to the Board of Aldermen. Mr. Novelly stated that it is certainly obviously within all of your (the Board’s) power, but his concern is that the economics and the market have changed as a result of some other development here in town. He said that if they get delayed again, especially going back to P&Z where they have already had unanimous approval, then it’s possible that it would put the project in jeopardy.
Novelly stated that it is certainly obviously within all of your (the Board’s) power, but his concern is that the economics and the market have changed as a result of some other development here in town. He said that if they get delayed again, especially going back to P&Z where they have already had unanimous approval, then it’s possible that it would put the project in jeopardy. Alderman Boulton stated that the applicant has had plenty of time to come back to the Board with new information since the July meeting and it is now four months later and it’s obvious that it is going to be a different project. Therefore, she would like to take a vote on the motion that is currently on the table. Alderman Garnholz stated that she does not feel adequately prepared to vote on the motion tonight. Alderman Berger stated that this project has changed dramatically, what the Board has had (originally) in front of them is not what it is now. This process is invalid because of the relationship between the Plan Commission and the Board of Aldermen. For those of you (Board)