Laserfiche WebLink
<br />adequate advocacy, and that they are left out of our process. This proposed Infill <br />Review Board is meant to provide advocacy for this group. <br /> <br />Councilmember Brot then spoke, referring to the Comprehensive Plan and citing several <br />points as some of their goals: “the preservation, maintenance and improvement of <br />residential neighborhoods.” “University City has a history of successful management of <br />its neighborhoods and of strong support from residents in these efforts. The <br />preservation and maintenance of residential neighborhoods, with their varied and often <br />unique characteristics, has been a high priority community goal for many years.” “The <br />housing stock in University City is generally of very high quality.” There has been <br />renewed interest in the central location of University City and it has kept the market <br />demand high for our housing. The older, well-constructed, larger houses are in greatest <br />demand. Another trend that has made older houses more popular is increased interest <br />in houses with architectural character. This has had a positive effect on suburbs like <br />University City. Reading from a portion of the Comprehensive Plan, she said that <br />housing units not economically feasible to rehabilitate should be demolished. Ms. Brot <br />said their goal was for “people to continue to love living here.” They are not asking that <br />all houses look alike, that run-down properties be maintained, but to find a way to help <br />the neighbors, who came before them, pleading for representation. Not every case is <br />the same. They want a “way to meet this goal.” <br /> <br />Next, they presented a hand-out. Mr. Wagner explained that it included a compilation of <br />quotes and comments from the City reports and that they demonstrated the mind-set <br />against the suggestion for an Architectural Review Board. He referred to some of the <br />quotes individually and discussed them with the Council. One statement suggested that <br />the devices of the Zoning Ordinance, the Preservation Commission ordinance and <br />Comprehensive Plan, all in place, are sufficient safeguards, but Mr. Wagner described <br />them as “incomplete safeguards” and referred to the Greensfelder case. He suggested <br />that the Comprehensive Plan was ignored completely. He disagreed with the comment <br />that development opportunities can be lost. <br /> <br />Ms. Brot referred to 501 North Jackson and the meeting of the neighbors with the <br />developer and described what took place at that meeting. She wanted the developer <br />and the real estate agent present to understand that there are many locations in <br />University City where this proposal would be welcomed, but this is not one of them. The <br />developer discussed the Villas in Kirkwood with her. They are an example of what <br />could be done in University City. She was clear that development is not opposed. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams spoke about the house on 501 North Jackson as “functionally obsolete.” <br />He asked how this property would be assessed under their guidelines? Mr. Wagner <br />said many detailed answers were yet to be developed for the ordinance. Some <br />discussion of this property followed. Mr. Wagner interjected that the purpose of this <br />board would be to look at suggestions from the neighbor’s point of view. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner explained the proposed board would have a one month window after an <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />