Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to oppose proposed 292‑unit development at St. Thomas/St. Rose site
Summary
Dozens of Florissant residents told the City Council they oppose a proposed multi‑family development at the former St. Thomas/St. Rose property, citing traffic, sewer, utility and density concerns; Mayor Timothy J. Lowry said no application has yet been filed with the city.
Dozens of Florissant residents told the City Council at its Oct. 13 meeting they oppose a proposed multi‑family development at the former St. Thomas/St. Rose site, which one speaker said would include about 292 units.
The issue drew the largest share of public comments at the session. Mayor Timothy J. Lowry told residents the project has not been submitted to the city and that developers are currently pursuing state funding. “This thing has not even been submitted to the city,” Lowry said, adding that the city has not received a site plan and that any zoning or plan changes would follow the planning-and‑zoning review process and, if approved there, would come to the council.
Residents said the scale and timing of the proposal worry them. Michelle House, a 25‑year Florissant resident, said she and neighbors were notified of a developer meeting and that “292 units is too large of a development for that size of a piece of property.” Multiple speakers raised consistent concerns about traffic on the two‑lane streets around the site, chronic sewer problems in the neighborhood, recurring power outages, and pressure on emergency services.
Other residents tied the objections to neighborhood character and zoning. Jim Beechler questioned whether the property is appropriately zoned for multifamily development given surrounding single‑family homes, while Martha Corwin and Lynn Bourgeois said they would prefer townhomes or single‑family homes and worried increased rental housing would reduce homeownership and maintenance standards.
Speakers also faulted the city’s outreach. Corwin said many residents learned about the developer meeting via Nextdoor and online forums rather than official city notices and asked for clearer, more timely communications. Councilwoman Parson and council members announced a community update meeting the developer is hosting Thursday, Oct. 16, in the Saint Rose cafeteria; Parson described that session as an opportunity for the developer to present preliminary information but not a formal city review.
No formal application, zoning change, or council vote was before the body at the Oct. 13 meeting. Lowry said the planning‑and‑zoning review could take many months and reiterated that neither the mayor’s office nor city planning staff have taken a position. Several residents said they will attend the developer’s upcoming meeting and return to future hearings if an application is filed.
The council did not take action on the development at the Oct. 13 meeting; the public comment period on the topic concluded at the end of the citizens’ hearing portion.
