02/10/1975 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- (1189) e (1260 ) e he said", could give an economic benefit. Financial assistance for renovation would be available to owners of historic buildings where it would not be avail- able to owners of commercial properties. Mr. Bradley thought the word "majority" should be deleted where the ordinance provided that retention of a historic landmark would have to be determined in the best interests of a majority of the citizens. He felt that terminology would require an election to determine what the majority desired. With regard to creation of a review board, Mr. Bradley thought it would be better if the director of the Pioneer Museum was designated as an ex officio member the same as the public works and parks directors, rather than a permanent voting member. Councilman Murray explained that the Historical Preservation Committee considered the position of Museum director a position identifiable with and requiring someone with knowledge of historic preservation,and that writing permanent membership into the ordinance. would guarantee that kind of expertise a vote on the board. He had no real objection to the concern about striking the term "majority", but he felt striking it might infer all citizens rather than just a majority. With regard to financial support, Mr. Murray noted that the ordin- ance did not require giving funds automatically to owners of historic property. It does provide for an application process to be weighed carefully in public hearing to help preserve those properties which might otherwise be lost. The question of whether the historic district would give advantage, that it was unequal, or constituted spot zoning, he said, had been referred to the city attorney who had given the opinion that that was not the case. Mr. Murray continued that the process defined in the ordinance was drawn from the community goals supplementing the comprehensive plan and mitigate unequal treatment or spot zoning factors - historical landmarks by their very nature are exceptional and should be treated as such; spot zoning or allowing different uses within a certain area, is legal if it is determined of public benefit, and historic preservation would fill that criteria; if broadening of possible uses in existing districts was considered, the decision would have to be made as to compatability with surrounding area, so within a historic district buildings would not be out of character with the immediate neighborhood. With regard to the penalty clause, Mr. Murray said his understanding was that it was necessary to administer the ordinance, that it would become economically desirable to an owner to demolish a structure if there was no penalty to work against him. Stan Long, assistant city attorney, added that the penalty question was primarily a philosophical argument. It is one effective means the city does have to gain compliance. The amount ($100), he said, was a policy judgment and could be changed if desired. Councilman Bradley asked if the Council under the terms of the ordinance if adopted would be obligated to appropriate funds for renovation if the city had budgeted money for that purpose. Manager answered that it would not be mandatory, that the Council would have authority to make individual judgments on individual applications for budgeted funds. Mr. Long referred to the clause in the ordinance following that in which the word "majority" was used with regard to designation of a historic landmark and said that language removed any question of the need for a plebescite on any particular issue. Vote was taken on the second reading of the bill. The motion carried unanimously, all council members present voting aye. and the bill was read the second time by council bill number only. Councilman Murray expressed appreciation to members of the Preservation Committee, of which he was chairman, for their work in drafting the ordinance under consideration - Beth Campbell, Gus Keller, D. Norval Unthank, Tom Slocum, and Glenn Mason. Mr. Murray moved seconded by Mr. Keller that the bill be approved given final passage. Rollcall vote. All council members present aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 17251. 5\ and voting 2/10/75 - 9