02/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

review board created under the ordinance would have as one of its responsibilities the provision of such funds. He suggested funding of this sort fell properly within the provisions for allocation of room tax m::mies. There was also the possibility that COlllllluni ty Development funds would be available. In addi tion, he said, there were many different existing Federal grant programs available for assistance in his- toric preservation besides the recent announcement that money accrued from lease of Federal lands for energy development should be used for historic preservation. . Mr. Murray pointed out that financial assistance was important because statistics showed that more than a third of the buildings listed as having historic value in national survey 40 years ago have been razed. He also noted that other cities had recognized the need for financial assistance and that Congress had adopted legisla- tion to .'protect buildings and sites of historic value. It was also felt important to counterbalance the pressures making it financially beneficial to neglect or destroy older buildings such as inappropriate zoning and related assessments, excessive Federal depreciation allowances, expense of keeping older buildings true to their history, etc. He urgea that the Council look at the ordinance as a whole and not as a "gift horse" because" of limited funds available. The city was in the position of being the pur- chaser of a product, he said, and of: making an appropriate and valid investment in its past. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller to schedule public hearing on the ordinance at the February 10 Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Corom 1/29/75 Pub Hrng Public hearing was opened. Alice Sachse, chairman of LCOG Arts Advisory Committee, commended the efforts of Co~ncilman Murray and his committee in drafting the proposed ordinance. She said it was long needed legislation, and that the Arts Advisory Committee supported it. (1079) . Joan Rich, 2050 Madison Street, asked whether the ground upon which a building designated as an historic landmark was situated would also be subject to the restrictions of the legislation. Mr. Saul eXplained that restrictions on a site having an historic building would be determined on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, he said, a site would be an integral part of the historic value of a structure. Provisions of the ordinance were worded to give flexibil- ity in making determinations in that regard. Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony. (1113 ) Council Bill No. 727 - Amending City Code adding Sections 2.405 through 2.412 and 9.488 through 9.491 and amending amending Sections 2.1990 and 9.254 estab- lishing historic preservation policy and creating H Historic District was read by council bill number and title only, there being no Council members present requesting that it be read in full~ 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. Councilman Bradley raised several question~. He suggested omitting that part of the penalty section which would make violation of the ordinance a misde- meanor in view of the trend toward decriminalization. He wondered if allowing different uses for ~roperties within a district might be applying the law unyqually. Allowing the owner of a property certain uses not allowed others, -- 2/10/75 - 8 SO