Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Session 1953 <br />MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br /> March 7, 2005 <br /> <br />At a study session of the City Council of University City held in the Council Chambers, <br />on Monday, March 7, 2005, Mayor Joseph Adams called the meeting to order at 5:30 <br />P.M. In addition to Mayor Adams, the following members of Council were present: <br /> <br /> Ms. Cassandra Colquitt <br /> Ms. Francine Brungardt <br /> Mr. Robert Wagner <br />Ms. Stefany Brot <br /> Ms. Shelley Welsch <br /> Mr. Arthur Sharpe, Jr. <br /> <br />Also present was the City Manager, Frank Ollendorff. <br /> <br />City Manager Ollendorff advised the purpose of this meeting was to discuss <br />Architectural Review and that the topic was requested by Councilmembers Wagner and <br />Brot. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner advised that it was with trepidation that he launched this topic. In years <br />past he has recommended an architectural review board and found it is not a popular <br />subject, having been rejected by previous councils. Both he and Ms. Brot determined to <br />present a briefing tonight, offering a proposal with some details, and they want feedback <br />from the present Council, with an eye toward creating an ordinance. First, he presented <br />a chart, showing that the concept now is more than architecture and he called it an “Infill <br />Review Board.” He described it as “the whole process” when someone wants to remove <br />a house and to build a new one and to subdivide lots. He referred to some current <br />issues before the Council and alluded to the trouble they have caused. He asked the <br />Council to consider an Infill Review Board - IRB. <br /> <br />He then posed the question, why does University City need an IRB? To begin, he <br />spoke about residential construction only and described it as a complex issue in an <br />urban neighborhood, because there are many stakeholders in the process: the <br />developers, the homeowners, University City taxpayers who have an interest in the total <br />property values and the neighbors who believe in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted <br />that no one else in the process seems to pay any attention to this plan. This leads to the <br />conclusion that those who have advocacy, the developers under the current system, <br />and because the attitude of the City staff and our process takes care of the developers. <br />They receive information quickly, they talk to the City, and they know everything. The <br />homeowners are partners with the developers and they are taken care of within our <br />process, they do not lack advocacy. The taxpayers have great advocacy with the entire <br />City Council. He and Ms. Brot do not believe that the neighbors have advocacy, <br /> <br /> <br />