03/26/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

..., .. - Karen Lansdowne, 10 Donovan Drive, owned property at 205 East 3rd Street. She said she had not been able to review the guidelines and procedures. She did have the standards for alterations, but had seen nothing regarding demolition or removal of structures. Her concern was that, in general, when property is affected by the City, if it is not at the initiation of a property owner or for the owner's benefit, some compensation is considered, or the property owners are involved in development of plans. She had been notified of the various meetings on this issue, but had not felt that she was part of developing the ideas and plans. She had concern regarding the alterations being subject to review by the Historic Review Board. She also noted there was no appeal process provided. She felt more study needed to be made regarding some standards for historic preservation that seemed to be incompatible with the present City building codes. She said it was important not to take over the rights of individual property owners without providing appeal rights. Marsha Medler, 769-1/2 Lawrence, questioned how the guidelines and procedures relate specifically to existing buildings that have historical value to the City. Ms. Rees replied the guidelines were developed for investigating proposals for historical landmark areas. The only area that has been proposed at this time is the East Skinner Butte area. e Public hearing was closed, there being no further testimony presented. Assistant Manager noted for Council the introduction of these guide- lines represent the first instance for the City to begin to consider area-wide design review. He noted in the process, there would be notice to the public, with attendant time delays and costs for those involved. He said these conditions probably would produce some appeals before the Council in the future. The normal appeal process would come from the Historic Review Board to the City Council if there were a difference of opinion between the Board and the indivi- duals involved. Mr. Obie understood the appeal procedure regarding the area-wide issue, but was concerned about the appeal procedure regarding modifi- cation, alteration, moving, or new development. Ms. Rees referred Mr. Obie to Appendix A, page 47, in which the attachment indicates the parts of the Code that are currently in force (pages 59 and 60). Under development standards that are being proposed (predominant number of stories or height), Mr. Obie wondered if it were predomi- nantly single-family and someone wanted to build a two-story building, whether or not the two-story would be allowed. Ms. Rees said in most lower residential zones, there is a maximum height of two stories or 35 feet. It would appear that maximum would be allowed. She noted in the East Skinner Butte area, the predominant height is one-and-a-half to two stori es. - 3/26/79--7 Ib5