02/22/05 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Special Session February 22, 2005 high and lofty ideas of University City's Comprehensive Plan. By not ensuring that City Ordinances support the statements in the Plan, common citizens are not only left with arguments and defenses based upon the Plan that will not hold up in court when forced to do so, but are also given a false sense of hope that vanishes into thin air when confronted with the legal system. Why even have the Plan? It not only cannot be enforced, but deceives the general population with a false sense of security. We had your total support until the idealistic goals of preserving the integrity of our neighborhood met face-to-face with the ever-increasing, all-powerful characteristic of self-centered greed. I have fought many battles in University City, for the school system, for our neighborhoods, for our churches over the past thirty plus years, but never before have I felt so deserted by my community. Joe Weintraub, 7832 Greensfelder Lane, a newcomer to University City, expressed his frustration over this situation. He commented upon the time and energy invested into the issue and mentioned that it was defeated by the Planning Commission, by the City Council and yet he is here once again because of this suit. He cited the proposed plan by Miracle Developments to install two "bowling alley" sized homes which do not fit the property as another issue being argued at present. He expressed his fear that because Greensfelder is a private street, that the nine people who live there pay for the upkeep of their street and if they "sign-off" on this, there will be no control or guarantee that their street will be maintained. He does not want to have to pay for something someone else has destroyed. He believes the vote sets a precedent. He does not understand why the vote is no and then something passes. He interprets these events as resulting in people suing the City to get whatever they want. Then he asked how University City would respond when six or seven of the neighbors on Greensfelder Lane file a counter suit? Mr. Wagner said the idea of having a bond from the construction company had been discussed previously with the City Manager, to cover any damage to the street from construction and asked him if he remembered the conversation. Mr. Ollendorff said he did and then explained that there should be a way the owners of the street can get protection against damage. If it were a City street, bonds would be required. He expressed willingness to work with the neighbors to make this happen. It is one step removed because it is a private street. Mr. Weintraub thanked the City Manager and expressed the opinion that neighbors do not object to erection of a house, but to the detrimental "look" that will affect the street. Mr. Ollendorff said Mr. Wagner asked him to ask Mr. Anselmo if he would meet with residents and Mr. Anselmo agreed. Mr. Wagner asked if the City had any legal leverage as far as a building permit was concerned and if a bond could be required? Mr. Ollendorff said it was an avenue that could be used, but the City cannot enforce private property rights. It can play a role in assisting the private property owners to enforce their rights. Mr. Ollendorff suggested meeting with property owners privately. He said he is not sure he can add requirements on a building permit that relates to private property but there ought to be a way to work out the problem. Mr. Wagoner referred to an item in a letter from Mr. Hill, Paragraph 4, Item A: Page 2