My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/07/05 Study
Public Access
>
City Council Minutes
>
2005
>
03/07/05 Study
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/21/2005 12:06:23 PM
Creation date
4/21/2005 12:03:49 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
3/7/2005
SESSIONNUM
1953
TYPE
STUDY
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />application is received, giving the neighbors a chance to call for a Public Hearing and to <br />meet with developers. This board’s decisions should be non-binding. Bringing the <br />neighbors in to talk to the developer should be a natural part of the cycle. He said the <br />implied complaints leveled at the Architectural Review Board do not fit the proposed <br />Infill Review Board. Design features will not be imposed. There will be an effort to <br />sustain compatibility with the neighborhood and that does not mean that things should <br />never change. They recommend that it take no longer than 30 days to obtain a building <br />permit, because the board will meet every two weeks and will be able to complete the <br />process in a month’s time, even with a Public Hearing. If there are objections, the board <br />should be able to deal with it in a couple of week’s time. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe asked about two specific infill houses and how problems with them could <br />have been avoided under the existing situation and how handling the same problems <br />would change under the proposed board? Mr. Wagner outlined the differences as <br />communication with the neighbors and the developer, an information exchange between <br />the architects, developers, and others involved. Ms. Brot commented about a house on <br />Gannon Avenue which was an eyesore. She said the Infill Review Board would be <br />concerned with many of the same issues as the Architectural Review Board but it would <br />be based upon mutual communication, understanding and the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Welsch mentioned the North Jackson situation and asked at what point <br />the neighbors would be included and was advised “early.” Discussion followed as to <br />steps in subdivision and rehabilitation and involving the neighbors. Mr. Wagner <br />enumerated the various types of options which could be considered by this board: re- <br />subdivision, demolition to build a single home, radical rehabilitation of existing home <br />which require a permit, would then go to the IRB who would get neighbors together with <br />the developers. This would relieve the City Council of the responsibility of “brokering” <br />meetings with the neighbors in the City Council meetings. <br /> <br />Councilmember Brungardt reported a late message inviting her to attend a meeting <br />(relating to North Jackson) from the developer. She also mentioned a house next door <br />to her home which had posed a problem and described her experience when a <br />developer came in, and the difficulties ensuing from that project. She also mentioned <br />an experience in Webster Groves relating to a similar situation, where she learned <br />about how an architectural review board there meets and handles proposals. Mayor <br />Adams asked about the North Jackson project and the “IRB” for the subdivision and Mr. <br />Wagner explained the procedure and how it would work. Mayor Adams basically <br />wanted to know if developers would have to appear before the IRB on both the issues of <br />re-subdivision and of architectural plans and was advised yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner introduced a hand-out listing a “skeleton of a proposal” and asked for <br />feedback. There are ten points: <br />1) What the IRB will do – examine applications for re-subdivision and building <br />permits <br />2) Re-subdivision – review for compliance with the spirit of the Comprehensive <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.