Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Session 1577, Minutes <br />September 14, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />In response to Mr. Price, Mr. Goldman said the previous owner (also a church) <br />was required to oonsult the Ccmnission, am to their credit, followed cx:mnis- <br />sion reccmne.rxlations am maintained the character of the building. As liai- <br />son to the Ccmnission at that time, Mrs. Sdu.nnan said the church received ex- <br />cellent advice fran Ccmnission members, who are experts in this field. <br /> <br />Ms. Turner said it was not in the church's interest to hann the building, but <br />it has not been designated an historic lammark am it was unfair to put this <br />obligation on them. <br /> <br />Mr. Schoaner noted the City's CaTprehensive Plan requires that builc:lin;Js of <br />historic interest be identified even if not naninated to the National Histor- <br />ic Register. He said oonsulting with the Ccmnission would not interfere with <br />the operation of the building. <br /> <br />'!here was brief discussion al:x:lUt historic designation, am Mr. Goldman said <br />that was not being recammen1ed, but only that the church seek advice fran the <br />Historic Preservation Ccmnission before chan;Jes are made. Mr. Price strongly <br />objected am said the City had no right to tell the church how to use its <br />building, even if the statement is not bin:ling. Mr. Schoaner pointed out <br />that the CaTprehensive Plan gives the City authority to do this, but in this <br />case it is not a requireIoont, but a ~tion. <br /> <br />Mrs. '!horrpson lOOVed approval of all oorrlitions except the statement suggest- <br />ing that the Historic Preservation Ccmnission be oonsulted before changes are <br />made. Mr. Price seoorrled the notion. Mr. Schoaner then lOOVed to amerrl the <br />notion by including that statement. Mrs. Schuman seoorrled the notion. '!he <br />vote on the aroorrlment was as follows: eouncil.meJnbers Schuman, Schoomer and <br />Mayor Majerus voted Aye; eouncil.meJnbers Price, '!horrpson am Wagner voted Nay. <br />'!he notion failed three to three. <br /> <br />Mrs. Schuman asked Mrs. '!hcmp;on if her notion included the oorrlition that <br />any use other than those nonnally considered religious services am programs <br />would require approval of a corrlitional use aroorrlment. Mrs. '!horrpson said it <br />did. All voted Aye on the original notion. <br /> <br />OONDITIONAL USE PEIMIT - UNIVERSITY :roREST NURSING ID1E <br /> <br />Mr. Goldman said city Manager Frank Ollerrlorff agreed with the Plan carmnis- <br />sion that an aroorrlment authorizing a 2o-bed addition to the University Forest <br />NUrsing Home be approved, with the following oorrlitions: <br /> <br />1. Transitional yards shall be provided alOR] the north am south property <br />lines fran Partridge to a point 500 feet west of Partridge. Cllain link <br />fencing shall be maintained arourrl the north, west am south property <br />lines. <br />2. At least 20 parking spaces shall be maintained in the parking areas east <br />of the building. <br />3. Driveways am loading areas shall be provided to directly serve the <br />north am south wings, with refuse boxes located outdoors on ooncrete <br />pads in such service areas am screened fran public view. <br />4. Meyer am Watts Avenues shall remain closed off fran the site by chain <br />