1992-03-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . March 25, 1992 Plan Commission Meeting Minutes Page 15 presented the application. She stated that she has been a resident of Parkview for twenty years and an agent for the passed five years. She presented evidence of Parkview's unique historical qualities. She stated that the HPC had a public hearing on the issue in November. Ms. Little presented the proposed packet for the designation including: a legal description, generalized zoning maps, statement of historical and architectural significance, the Parkview Historic District Regulations and Parkview Appearance Standards. Mr. Marsh asked how the proposal fit in with the Comprehensive Plan and whether the encouragement of in-migration would be hindered by the designation. Paul Strohm, HPC member stated that it would make construction more time consuming. The intent is not stop modem houses. They don't want the structures to be exactly recreated. Ms. Kreishman asked why the size of the lots was not addressed. Ms. Little stated that the lots can not be smaller than the platted lots according to the neighborhood indentures. Ms. Kreishman pointed out that the word "approval" should be changed to "review" in the second paragraph on page 6. Ms. Little stated that there is no mechanism for enforcement. Approval would be given to the HPC for Part II, 1 - 7. Ms. Kreishman stated that she felt this was a lot like a beauty board, which does not benefit the homeowners. Ms. Little stated that the provisions would have to be enforced by the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Marsh stated that Part II's requirements were to invasive. Mr. Foxworth asked whether a certain type of building material would have to be used for construction. Ms. Little replied that only the front of the structure would have to comply. Ms. Ratner stated that the provisions concerning the landscaping bothered her. She feels it restricts peoples' property rights and that the resources of the City to enforce this ordinance would be too burdensome. She suggested that the restrictions be put into the neighborhood indenture and be enforced by the residents. Ms. Little stated that the indentures left no measure for amendment. She further stated that letters had been sent to every resident in Parkview concerning the designation; only two calls were made concerning it and they were both in support. Ms. Kreishman stated that in view of the Commission members' comments and that was a first submission, she would feel more comfortable reviewing the designation in the future to allow the HPC to re-submit. She suggested that the proposal be more concise with the review and requirements. Mr. Foxworth moved to table the vote on the designation until a later meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Ratner and passed by a vote of 5 - O. Ms. Little requested that she would appreciate a formal staff recommendation prior to the next meeting. Ms. Kreishman commented that she was not comfortable with the specific controls. Ms. Ratner stated that part of the staff report should include enforcement of Part II. Mr. Goldman requested a copy of the City of St. Louis ordinance for the other part of Parkview. Mr. Marsh stated that he was all for the designation but that the restrictions should properly be part of the neighborhood indentures. m-J-25.plc