Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Regular meeting <br />January 30, 2006 <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner said that what the board's function would be to open up the communication <br />between the contractor and the neighbors, hopefully to work a compromise for a <br />satisfaction of both ends. Neighbors within 400 ft will be notified of the construction. <br />Right now we have no discretion of turning anyone down if all specifications meet <br />University City's ordinances. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner said that the board would be made up of seven members, each <br />Council member and Mayor would appoint one and the Planning Commission would <br />have the option of appointing three. <br /> <br />Mayor Adams opened the Public Hearing at 7:37 p.m. <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS: <br /> <br />Carol Rossel, 7407 Teasdale <br />Ms. Rossel displayed exhibits of houses built which did not match the neighborhood <br />setting. She felt like the Infill Review Board was needed to prevent any more of this <br />happening in University City. <br /> <br />Saundra Lowes, 7425 Teasdale <br />Ms. Lowes stated that the footprint of a new construction could be overpowering for <br />neighbors. For this reason, she was in favor of the Infill Review Board to bring <br />neighbors together with owner and contractor. She did not want University City to <br />change its identity. <br /> <br />Harley Smith, 7025 Washington <br />Mr. Smith opposed the board as he felt that it would cause University City to become <br />static and have no dynamic future. He felt that it would discourage future development <br />in University City. <br /> <br />Rosalyn Borg, 7820 Cornell <br />Ms. Borg was in favor of the board. This would be a way for neighbors to discuss plans <br />ahead of time and prevent feuding after development began or was completed. She felt <br />the board would protect University City's unique architectural style. Mr. Borg said that <br />she felt the board's existence would enhance and not hinder development in University <br />City. She said that existence of such boards was not new and existed in many <br />surrounding communities. <br /> <br />Richard Dockett, 6844 Crest Ave. <br />Said he was not in favor of the board as he was in agreement with what previous <br />speakers who were against it had stated. <br /> <br />Edward McCarthy, 7101 Princeton <br />Mr. McCarthy was opposed to the board as was the Planning Commission. He felt that <br />Page 6 <br />