The request by Ella Real Property Holdings, LLC, for a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a residential dwelling at 205 East Elm St. in O’Fallon has been withdrawn. However, the developer might submit a different plan for consideration at a future date.
The development would have been located in a C-1/Restricted Business District. C-1 zoning allows for residential uses with CUP.
The land currently contains a vacant commercial building. That building would have been removed and replaced with two 2-story multi-family residential buildings. Each building would have had three units, for a total of six units.
The applicant withdrew the plan at the Feb. 25 council meeting. The withdrawal letter says the developer might submit a different plan for consideration at a future date. Any new plan would need to start again at the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z).
P&Z had recommended denial of the original plan and CUP request, based on having only on-site parking space on that land for a total of six spaces (one vehicle per unit).
In addition, P&Z specifically had suggested that if the council decides to move for approval of the CUP and override their denial, certain conditions should be set. Specifically, the committee stated:
- Given prior violations of ordinance and applicant’s failure to cooperate with required inspections of similar projects within the city, applicant is hereby required to employ a knowledgeable, experienced project manager who shall be present during the construction of this project and shall oversee the work.
- The project manager shall be submitted to the city for approval prior to issuance of any building or construction permit.
- No work may commence with respect to the project until the project manager is approved by the city.
- The project manager shall communicate with the city concerning all project permits and the work and shall be present for all required inspections.
During the public comments session for this bill on Feb.11, council members expressed mixed feelings about using a small commercial property in the downtown overlay district for small apartments, instead of keeping it for future commercial use.
On Feb. 11, Council member Katie Gatewood (Ward 5) moved to remove the conditions from the bill in advance of any second reading because she said it “looks like government overreach.” The motion passed 8-1.
When the bill would have come back for its second reading and vote for passage at the Feb. 25 council meeting, the conditions requiring hiring a project manager would not have been part of the bill. However, the bill was withdrawn prior to the council’s Feb. 25 meeting.