02/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full. (1022) Councilman Keller asked whether this amendment would apply only to new construction or whether it would create any hardship on established driveways. Don Allen, public works director, answered that the major effect would apply to new construction. However, the amendments would permit the traffic engineer to close or change existing driveways presenting safety problems, working with property owners in the process. He noted appeal procedure to the City Manager and City Council was provided in the ordinance. Councilman Murray expressed some reservations about the effect on residential streets in established neighborhoods where the city would be in a position to "tell an established homeowner he must do something new and different to his driveway at his expense." Mr. Allen answered that the regulation was an attempt to control commercial curb cuts, not those of private residences. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the Council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Motion carried unanimously and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved and given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17250. (1.) 2. Historic Preservation - Establishing H Historic District. Manager reviewed process for developing the ordinance and its provisions. Historic Preservation Ordinance - Copies of Planning ComnUssion January 7, 1975 official report and nUnutes having to do with recommendation for adoption of an ordinance provid- ing for preservation of historic buildings were previously distributed to Council members. Draft of the ordinance itself was not yet available but was to be distributed prior to consideration at the February 10 Council meeting. Councilman Hurray explained that the Historic Preservation Committee had brought a pro- posed ordinance to the Council after working with city staff, local citizens, and gaining information from other cities having a similar ordinance. The Council referred the ordinance to the Planning Commdssion where it was expected administrative and procedural revisions could take place. Substantial revision of that nature did take place, he said. However, the document to be presented nOl1l was basically the same as that referred by the Council. Hr. Murray further explained the major effect of the ordinance would be to create a new zoning district - H Historic District - wherein there would be some restraints with regard to exterior alterations of structures deternUned to have historic value. There would also be a public process for determining whether an owner should remove a building. An historic review board would be created to provide assistance in terms of how sturctures could be maintained. There would also be additional incentive for retaining older struc- tures through allowing broader use than would normally be allOl1led under current zoning. The ordinance would also provide that limited funds be made available for assisting in exterior maintenance and repair. e In response to Councilman Haws inquiry about Planning Commissioner Maxwell's concern about financial assistance in the form of subsidization to property owners, Mr.Murray said the commdttee felt that without some financial assi~tance the ordinance would be ineffective. He said the only financial assistance anticipated would be for repairs and exterior maintenance. Since the city attorney had given the opinion that general tax funds could not ,be used ~or that purpose, the committee proposed that the historic 49 2/10/75 - 7