Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1844 <br />June 17, 2002 <br /> <br />someone else's property line, then he thinks that this could be a problem. <br /> <br />Mr. Munkel agrees with Mr. Bowser's comments that fifteen days doesn't seem like <br />enough time for the Historic Preservation Commission to fully review a demolition <br />project in light of the fact that they only meet once a month. As he recalled, being a <br />liaison to the HPC, sometimes they didn't meet for a couple of months if they didn't have <br />business to discuss. He asked Mr. Bowser if he had a more favorable timeframe in <br />mind. Mr. Bowser believes a minimum of thirty days would be sufficient, then another <br />meeting could be scheduled in case something had to be sent back. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner said that number 22 says that the Historic Preservation Commission <br />expands their review to areas three hundred feet outside of their districts. Mr. Wagner <br />said that the historic districts are voluntary based on the people that live in that district. <br />He questioned the City Manager on what exactly were the rights of the people that lived <br />outside of the historic districts. Mr. Ollendorff replied that there are many uses that <br />require conditional use permits from the Plan Commission and City Council. Currently, <br />they only have to go to the Historic Preservation Commission if the use is within one of <br />these districts. The idea behind this text change is for anyone applying for a use that <br />needs a conditional use permit within 300 feet of a historic district to additionally have to <br />go before the Historic Preservation Commission for approval. The City Council may still <br />approve a conditional use permit even after getting contrary advice from the Historic <br />Preservation Commission. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner asked what the changes were for parking plans. Mr. Ollendorff said that <br />after having problems with construction projects and contractors parking in the <br />neighborhoods, the City Council and Planning staff have been attaching conditions that <br />the applicants must have parking plans. We would like, instead, to make this a <br />requirement of the ordinance which would apply to everybody and then you wouldn't <br />have to attach conditions to each one. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner asked about the text changes for attached and detached garages. He <br />understands currently that detached garages are treated separately from attached <br />garages as far as required backyard setback is concerned. Mr. Ollendorff would like to <br />get him a more thorough explanation for Mr. Wagner, his general understanding is that <br />this makes garages come under the same requirement versus different ones. Right <br />now you can not have a garage in the rear setback area if it is attached, you can only <br />have it there if it is separated. We will continue to allow garages in the rear yard, but <br />they may not become a second housing unit. He'll get a more detailed explanation from <br />the Planning staff. Mr. Wagner said that the problem with this is that a detached garage <br />can use up a lot of the setback, whereas the attached garage has to have the setback. <br />His constituents call him often warning the City not to abuse this and allow people to <br />build garages right on their back yard line. <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff said that all the Council will do tonight is review these text changes and <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />