2010-02-22 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

accomplished without the electorate of University City, mandated by Article 11, Section 98 of the City Charter. Ms. Glickert said Eastgate Park was acquired in 1923 by a bond issue. She said that since this resolution would require a change in land use and zoning this should be referred to the Plan Commission. Ms. Glickert said an independent appraisal should be performed and wanted to know who would pay for it. She said Eastgate Park is just shy of one acre. Ms. Glickert stated that if Eastgate Park was rezoned to commercial it would have a greater real estate value than the proposed land trade being recommended by Washington University. She said Metcalf Park and Ackert Walk were accomplished through a 2.5 M bond issue in 1962. Ms. Glickert reminded everyone that Metcalf Park was formerly Lambs Quarry and University City’s refuse dump and subsequent landfill. She said as such there will be methane gas as the trash continues to decay and the land continues to settle. Ms. Glickert asked in regard to the public meeting held January 25, why it was held in competition with the City Council meeting where Councilmembers could not attend. Ms. Ricci said she had the same concerns in the previous study session. She verified with Ms. Feier that the Council was not approving the relocation of Eastgate with this resolution. Rather the Council is approving the next process which is to do further research and come up with a definitive plan, not agreeing to relocate any park or exchange any land with this resolution. Ms. Feier stated that what Council has is in concept of plan which yes if we move forward would involve exchanging land and would absolutely involved the vote of the people if the City no longer kept one of the parks. Ms. Feier said that what is being done tonight is the approval of the concept plan and staff can apply for various grants to do the next level of planning. She said that this action certainly does not purchase, exchange or anything like that. Ms. Ricci stated that then what was needed in this resolution was a more complete definition of the Parkview North/Delmar neighborhood plan. She noted that when she left the study session the next step was for Council to do diligence, get the pulse of the constituents, like a feasibility study. Ms. Ricci stated that the way the resolution reads is that Council is agreeing to relocate Eastgate Park. She said the next step should be a feasibility study and what was being voted on is not an agreement to relocate Eastgate or do any land swap. A representative from H3 stated it was a conceptual design plan for the neighborhood as a whole and for the three parks identified in the Parks Master Plan. Ms. Ricci asked if there were any citizens who objected and H3 representative said there was broad base consensus. H3 representative said what would be needed next was a more detailed plan developed and there would also have to be more detailed plan for each of the three parks developed and at that point the Council would have the materials to put into place to develop an integrated funding plan and some relevant cost figures. Ms Ricci moved to amend the resolution to include “with the completion of the Parkview North/Delmar Neighborhood Plan which is a feasibility study moving the plan forward.” Just to be clear the Council is not agreeing to relocate any parks at this point.” Ms. MacCartney suggested wording to be amended to say with the completion of the Parkview North/Delmar Neighborhood Plan, “implementing the next steps as outlined in the Parkview Gardens Park Plan which clearly states we will be doing these steps before making any decisions on implementation of Capital improvement.” Mr. Crow asked if there would be additional input for citizens in moving forward. He asked if the Park’s Commission approved this. Ms. MacCarthy agreed to both questions. 4