My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2006-10-23 Council Agenda
Public Access
>
City Council Agenda
>
2006
>
2006-10-23 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/20/2006 12:24:23 PM
Creation date
10/20/2006 12:24:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Council Meeting
Supplemental fields
Minutes - Date
1/9/2006
SESSIONNUM
1090
TYPE
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
49
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Ordinance – Text Amendment <br /> <br />AGENDA SECTION: NEW BUSINESS <br /> <br />CAN THIS ITEM BE RESCHEDULED? : Yes <br /> <br />BACKGROUND REVIEW: The ordinance would amend chapter 34 of the municipal code of the City of University <br />City, relating to zoning, by repealing section 34-77.2 thereof relating to referral to the Historic Preservation <br />Commission. <br /> <br />The designation on the National Historic Register is honorary only and permits applicants to qualify for historic tax <br />credits. There is no review of building permit applications at the national level nor do any criteria exist. The fact <br />that private subdivisions have their own indentures with their own criteria for reviewing proposals is the opportunity <br />to insure compliance with the subdivision indentures. A further review by the Historic Preservation Commission <br />using the subdivision indenture criteria would be a clear duplication. Properties within University City designated <br />historic districts have specific criteria for the commission to consider and this insures that historic structures within <br />these districts are compatible. <br /> <br />At the October 17, 2006 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission the members supported the proposed <br />amendment because they are of the opinion that their further review of applications in areas within the National <br />Historic Registry in private subdivisions not in University City Historic Districts or landmarks would be duplication. If <br />the Historic Preservation Commission were to come up with their own criteria differing from the private subdivision <br />trustees’, then the issue would arise as to whose criteria would prevail and this would create a conflict. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.