Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1681, Minutes <br />October 21, 1996 <br /> <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />however, he felt the City should instead insist that tunneling start at Big Bend going west into Clayton. <br />Council cannot make this decision but East/West Gateway should be made completely aware of the <br />Council's views and the fact that the 40,000 citizens here are important to them. The resolution asks <br />for below grade construction along Millbrook east of Big Bend, cut-and-cover or tunneling to Forest <br />Park Parkway, visual buffering, adequate restrictions on noise and vibration levels, prohibition on forced <br />property sales, prohibition on any above grade crossing, no park-and-ride lots and no commuter parking <br />on residential streets. This information will give East/West Gateway a road map of what to expect if <br />they want to come through University City. Mr. Lieberman moved adoption of the resolution. Mr. <br />Munkel seconded. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner agreed with all speakers who stated that the Council must protect their neighborhoods. He <br />noted that Council is on record as supporting MetroLink generally, and that light rail around the country, <br />when done properly and non-intrusively, will increase property values in the long term and have a <br />beneficial environmental impact. However, the east-west link is controversial. He said Mr. Smith's <br />statements were closest to his own feelings--that is, University City neighborhoods deserve to be <br />protected against being designated as the lowest cost solution to anything. The key is non-intrusive <br />implementation, assuring a low impact on adjoining neighborhoods. He agreed with Mr. Lieberman's <br />resolution, but had one addition, that of subterranean construction along the complete route in University <br />City. Also, the vibration levels must be imperceptive. He felt the resolution contained all necessary <br />points except "below-grade" in points one and two should instead say "subterranean." <br /> <br />Mrs. Thompson said she would not hastily agree to anything, but felt residents should not be ignored <br />because they will be needed to support MetroLink. She said more consideration should be given to the <br />proposed I-170 and 1-64 routes, and also said that those in charge cannot do whatever they want and <br />ignore the citizens. <br /> <br />Mr. Munkel asked if Mr. Lieberman would accept the change recommended by Mr. Wagner. Mr. <br />Lieberman asked for a clarification. Mr. Wagner said his definition of"subterranean" is "out of sight, <br />covered over or tunneling." He added he did not agree with the argument that there is not enough <br />money to do the work correctly. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner moved to amend the resolution by replacing "below-grade" in points one and two with <br />"subterranean." Mrs. Thompson seconded. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoomer opposed the amendment, adding he has spent much time on this matter over many years, <br />and did not feel Council should be doing the engineering for the project. He pointed out if there were <br />too many restrictions, University City will end up with no route, which will hurt the community a lot. <br /> <br />Mr. Ware also felt it was important that University City have a MetroLink spur; however, he noted that <br />it was very difficult to get a definitive resolution. He agreed that property values should not suffer, and <br />residents should not be impacted negatively in any other way. <br /> <br /> <br />