1990-08-27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Minutes - Plan cojltssion June 27, 1990 Page 6 . that the Tivoli building can survive and be successfully rehabilitated as an architectural focus in the Loop. Ms. Little stressed that the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for building rehabilitation have guided restoration for many years and have been edited and refined into tried and true standards. Ms. Elwood reviewed for the Plan Commission its duties under the Article for Historic Landmarks and Districts which include consideration of proposed landmarks or districts as text amendments to the Zoning Code in terms of its compatibility with the comprehensive plans of the city. The Commission then reports its recommendations to the City Council. Ms. Elwood reviewed the policies stated in the 1986 Comprehensive Plan which include the preservation and maintenance of the city's commercial areas as critically important to the well-being of the city. The 1986 Comprehensive Plan also specifically details the focus needed to keep the Loop business district improving. After further discussion, including Chairperson Kreishman's statement that she would be abstaining from any vote on the issue at hand due to a potential conflict of interest, Mr. Foxworth moved that the Plan Commission table the Application for Designation of the Tivoli Building at 6346-70 Delmar Boulevard as a Local Historic District until its next meeting. Mr. Kendall seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4-0 with one (1) abstention. PROPOSAL FOR ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS PROVISION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROCESS FOR EXCEPTIONS TO FENCE REGULATIONS Ms. Elwood explained to Commission members that the City Council had enacted a new subsection (d) to section 34-52.5 of the Zoning Code in January of 1990 establishing a requirement that exposed structural members of a fence face the interior of the property upon which they are constructed. When the Zoning Code was so amended, the previous subsection (d), requiring accessory structures and uses to comply with the bulk regulations applicable to the district in which they are located, was not made into a new subsection (e) but was merely omitted. Planning staff recommends that this subsection be affirmatively included as part of the regulations governing accessory uses and should be reinstated as section 34-52.5{e). Mr. Foxworth moved, therefore, that the Plan Commission recommend adoption of the following text amendment thereby amending section 34-52.5 of the University City Zoning Code by adding the following subsection (e) which was deleted as a result of adding a new subsection (d) as of January 8, 1990: (e) Accessory structures and uses shall otherwise comply with the bulk regulations applicable to the district in which they are located. Ms. Ratner seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 4-0 with one (1) abstention.