02/14/2005 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Meeting February 14, 2005 it is absolutely Mr. Holtzman’s intent to get together with the folks and talk about design.” He expressed his willingness to answer any questions. Michael Koby, 7426 Washington Avenue, brought pictures of lots surrounding the 501 North Jackson. He said he lives right behind a lot that was subdivided on Stratford Avenue and the two houses built were controversial with the neighbors, but fit in well. He is not opposed to new development, but he believes this particular lot has become controversial among the neighbors because of the type of lots surrounding it. Any adjoining lot contains large houses in the middle of the property. The major objection is that the proposed subdivision “just does not fit.” He said it is difficult to envision two houses there next to all the other lots. He described that side of the street as “unique.” Neighbors regard the proposal as “peculiar. . . and were upset about the notion of two houses going there next to the Stolar property” as shown in the pictures he brought tonight. He said they conducted an investigation and discovered that implied to them was some type of plan. They approached the (Saint Louis) County and obtained the original plat from Plat Book No. Ten, page 26, which shows all the lots as similarly proportioned. Then they deciphered the restricted covenants which read “ . . . but one residence building shall be erected or placed at any time upon each lot, and such building shall never be used or occupied as an apartment house, flat, hotel or any other purpose than a private residence for one family.” The implied meaning of this was clear to the researchers, there would be no multiple dwellings. He regarded the language in this paragraph as clear and restating what the neighbors hold to be implied. They do not see any reason for this proposal to go forward. The language clearly states, he asserted, that is type of covenant applies to this property. Ms. Welsch asked Mr. Koby to explain how the language in that plat applies to the City of University City? She commented that it is a private development and asked how the language in a private development plat affected the City laws? He responded that there is reliance when one buys a house that these covenants are legitimate. Also, it seems “out-of-place” to put two or more buildings next to these lots. He said he did not know what might have over-ruled the covenants. The neighbors do not understand why they are not still currently in place as part of the covenant or of the title search. Mr. Ollendorff said the answer is very clear that it is not up to the City to enforce those covenants and restrictions. It may be that the other property owners stand up for private action, but it is not the City’s obligation or authority to enforce those covenants. Ms. Welsch then asked at what point do City Ordinances and rules over-ride a covenant or a plat such as this. Mr. Ollendorff said there are two separate things. Private covenants cannot over-rule the City Ordinance nor can the City Ordinance over-rule the private covenants. The City must enforce subdivision law and the City does not have any standing to enforce the private covenants. Ms. Welsch then asked what happens when these two entites are in conflict and Mr. Ollendorff said it happens regularly. These are private convenants, enforced by private parties. Mayor Adams added that it is up to the courts to determine whether these private covenants still exist and the Page 10