08/18/97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1703, Minutes August 18, 1997 does not have the authority to do that. He asked Mr. Ollendorfffor a rationale behind the approximately ten homes, in his photos, which have fences in their front yards. Mr. Ollendorff said that he was aware of the situations behind a couple of the homes, the others he was not. He said that he would look into each of these homes to see what had happened and report back to Dr. Williams and the City Council. Mr. Ollendorff said that the Williams' were certainly entitled to a very specific answer on each of these homes. One of the homes in the pictures was approved by the Board of Appeals, not by the City Council. Mr. Ollendorff explained that the Board of Appeals has the authority on a major thoroughfare, like Hanley, to approve items that the City Council does not have the power to approve. Another home in the pictures, is in a different zoning district and the requirements are different in the planned redevelopment district than in the zone the Williams' are in. The other homes will be investigated and a written report given to the Williams'. Dr. Williams said that they had not had an inspector out to look at his homes. They have requested one on five occasions and have not had one come out yet. There are numerous violations on those homes. He believes what they are building is an excellent addition to University City, and will increase the tax base and school system because it will encourage the right kind of people to come into the community. They are concerned, because things are starting to drag and he would like an explanation. Mrs. Thompson said that she would also like the City Manager to look into this, also. She has a problem with the wording, "without further consideration", because other homes, as Dr. Williams stated, do have fences. She would like to know why they can not put a fence up when others, obviously, have. (After moving in to Agenda Item #6, Mr. Schoomer called a Point of Order, noting that there had not been a disposition of Agenda Item #5) Mr. Schoomer moved to table this proposal for further investigation. Mrs. Thompson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM #6 - SITE PLAN - 501-515 NORTH & SOUTH: Mr. Wagner said that looking at the planned development on North & South, he noted that there were many people that were positive on residential development in University City. He thinks that it is a sign of a vital community and he welcomes these plans that come in to increase the City's housing stock. In this particular case, the impact on existing neighborhoods is just too much. He has visited this area and realized the tremendous negative impact that this development would have on this very fine University City neighborhood. It is just too massive for this area and the density of family units per acre is too high. Council is not opposed to development and looks forward to good projects. He just sees too many negatives on this project. The City Manager's recommendation that buildings be reduced by one story is certainly a step in the right direction; increasing the rear set back to give more green buffering space for the homes on Donne is also a good step. Mr. Wagner believes that there should be more parking per unit, as well.