2002-06-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1844 June 17, 2002 that award be made to CDS for $47,043. Mr. Sharpe moved adoption of the consent calendar. Mr. Munkel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. AGENDA #2 - PUBLIC HEARING ON TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE UNIVERSITY CITY ZONING CODE: The Planning staff and Plan Commission, following detailed study, have recommended a group of amendments to the Zoning Code. Many of the amendments are necessary to bring the Zoning Code into compliance with the objectives of the University City Comprehensive Plan. Others clarify responsibilities of the Plan Commission and the Historic Preservation Commission. Subjects include accessory structures, signs, vehicular parking, setbacks, conditional uses, commercial development standards, and special uses such as certain retail shops. Following consideration of public comments, the City Council may introduce the proposed text amendments. Mayor Adams opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Ralph Bowser, 8050 Teasdale, wished to make some comments regarding the proposed text amendments. He felt that the Planning staff did a very good job on the changes. Several of his comments center around the changes involving the Historic Preservation Commission. He says that these changes suggest that all of the demolition projects must be reviewed by them within a fifteen day period, and he feels that this may be a little ambitious for a board that only meets once a month. He believes this puts a burden on the commission. He also gets the impression from reading these changes that the review of demolition projects mixes both historic and non-historic areas. He believes that it would be better to differentiate the review process in order to remove the review of the non-historic demolition projects from the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission, since they should only be dealing with historic areas. He also noted that there seems to be a change to the fence code. It looks like the only change was to the repair of the fence, but all of the materials was bolded, which meant that the whole thing was a change. It's possible that it was incorrect or he doesn't understand it. It says that fences under eighteen feet will not require a building permit. He questions whether or not someone can put up six feet this month and then nine feet next month as long as they stay under the eighteen feet requirement to avoid having to go through the permit process. Again, from the changes, it looks like decks can be built by areas where there is a setback either on the back or the side of the house. He's not sure if he clearly understands this. If this means that a deck can be built immediately adjacent to