HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1/14/1998 - Community Development Committee (2) .�. �..
. =;;
1r�
' r <, :: , ,'; ' ��BUILDlNG'AND ZONING�:COMMIT fEE .;
. f,+��� i. '. :� _ .
Wednesday, January 14, 1998 at 6:00 P.M.
�.
TO: Building and Zoning Committee
Frank McClatchey, Chairman
°.,;_ .
�� FROM: Phillip J. Maggio, City Planner �
.��.
RE: Proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Historic Preservation Ordinance (Revised 12/10/97)
2. Plan Commission Minutes (5/15/97)
` , 3. ZBA Report (9/15/97)
� 4. Guide to Local Government Preservation Ordinances
5. US Preservation Committee Identification Project Report
RECOMMENQATION: To provide a recommendation to the Histo c Pre'servationto
proceed with the request to create a
Ordinance.
Nancy Fike, Chairman of the City's Landmark Commission, has P cHentea This ttached
Historic Preservation Ordinance for consideration by the City of M ry
�, ordinance was originally discussed at a Building and Zoning Committee meeting on
September 16, 1996. Following this meeting, the City Council recommended that the
Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals review the proposed ordinance before
any further action is taken.
The Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals have held meetings to discuss the
proposed ordinance. The minutes of these meetings have been attached for your
review.
The attached Historic Preservation �e e aalsed attthe adv s/ory board meetings dThe
address some of the concerns that
� � changes to the ordinance include the following: .
1. Nomination of Landmarks and Preservation Districts, (Page 9, Paragraph 3):
This section was changed to require that the City Council initiate the landmark
nomination process in cases where the owner of a property or 25% of the owners in
an area do not consent to the nomination.
� Paragraph 4):
2. Criteria for Consideration of Nomination, (Page 10,
This section was changed to require that a property or area be at least 50 years old
and meet one additional criteria from this section before it can be designated as a
� - protected landmark.
�...
Page 1 of 2
q,��`�r�i���1}����A .7�� t ! �.. ' - �.� .. :�: �;L
. .-. BUILDiNQ'AND ZONlNG.COMMITTEE .:
�dt'��'�ra{{�d.;°R ''r� i - �'�t�.
:.-. ... ... .... ...,:,.....�_.
Wednesday, January 14, 1998 at 6:00 P.M.
�
3. Desi4nation (Page 12, Paragraph 9):
This section was changed to add the option for the City Council to deny the
recommendation of the Landmark Commission and choose not to designate a
property or area as a protected landmark.
In addition to these items which were changed in the ordinance, the following concerns
were raised at the advisory board meetings:
1. A general concern was raised over the trade-off between property owners' rights and
�' the City's interests in protecting historic landmarks. It was suggested that the
property owner's consent to any designation be required: However, this may not be
adequate to protect the City's most important landmarks if their owners do not agree.
2. Definitions that are more specific or descriptions for the Criteria for Consideration of
Nomination (Page 10, Paragraph 4.) should be included in the ordinance.
3. More information on the amount of staff time and City funding required to administer
� and enforce the ordinance should be provided.
4. The intent of the City to establish a Historic Preservation Ordinance or protection
�.
program should be included in the Comprehensive Plan.
5. If the City Council determines that a Historic Preservation Ordinance should be
created, then a review by the City Attorney and staff should be done to ensure that
the ordinance is correctly drafted.
Following a recommendation from the Building and Zoning Committee, the proposed
Ordinance will be forwarded to the City Council to determine if staff should pursue
creating an ordinance.
If the City Council elects to proceed with the creation of a Historic Preservation
Ordinance, a complete review by the City Attorney and the preparation of a Final Draft of
� a Historic Preservation Ordinance would be initiated.
�...
Page 2 of 2