2006-01-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.. , ~; -~ . Frank Hill From: Rosalyn Borg [rosalynborg@juno.com] Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 9:08 PM To: Frank Hill Subject: Re: In-Fill Review Board Vote Dear Frank, I strongly support the proposed In-fill Review Board ordinance. In fact, I would prefer one that is stronger; however, I am willing to accept the proposed ordinance as a step forward in the right direction for the following reasons: University City is a unique community with a distinctive style of architecture. It is one of the things that draw people to the city. While there are a wide variety of architectural styles and materials, there is also a very recognizable style and design that is distinctly "U City." If each developer is left to do whatever he or she wants helter skelter, even with the current code, U City will lose its distinctive qualities and start to look like every other municipality. The IRB will not hinder development in U City; I think it will enhance development. As a resident I want to know that my property value isn't going to be diminshed because' new construction in my neighborhood detracts from the orignal neighborhood design and stands"out like a Wart on the back of a hand. Architectural review committees, oversight committees, architectural standards boards, by whatever name you want to use, are not something new. Other municipalities surrounding U City have architectural standards boards of some kind, and development, including in-fill, hasn't stopped or slowed down. To the contrary, they are growing and expanding. The IRB Ordinance makes a statement that U City is serious about expansion, the terms under which expansion and development can take place, about preserving its unique architectural qualities, and we want it done the right way now and in the future. The Ordinance will bolster existing code, not make the code more difficult. There is nothing wrong with a community having standards that are to the betterment. It will not add an additional expense for the developer and client who should want to be in compliance with the community's standards from the beginning of the process. Licenses, fees, etc. are all built into the cost of the project. A review that must render a decision within 2 weeks isn't going to add expense nor will it delay construction unless the dispute cannot be amicably resolved through compromise. In that case, the dispute probably required action by the IRB from the beginning. The Plan Commission is often called upon to referee disputes between the residents of a neighborhood and the developer. Sometimes, these disputes are very heated, often so because there appears to have been no effort by the developer to communicate with the residents to share his plans' and to try to resolve their differences. The IRB would be helpful tool under those circumstances by opening the lines of communication. ". The proposed ordinance does not add an additional bureaucratic layer. On the contrary, unless 60% of the neighbors request a review, the IRB cannot be accessed. This stipulation will require the 146QOO6 IIU "''' "',--.......... ..<.,....- -...:--,.........- .~.._.-..,....-.,......_."............ -.