1990-10-1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1529, Minutes Page 7 October 1, 1990 C "AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF UNIVER- SITY CITY, RELATING TO RETIREMENT AND PENSIONS, BY REPEALING SECTION 25-14 THEREOF, AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NO. 5295 ENA n D JULY 27, 1981, RELATING TO ELIGIBILITY FOR RErIRIImr, AND ENACTING IN LIEU THEREOF A NEW SECTION TO. BE KNOWN AS 'SECTION 25-14. ELIGIBILITY FOR RETIREMENT BY REASON OF AGE, ' BY AMENDING SUBSECTION (4) SO THAT A MEMBER OF THE FUND MAY BECOME VESTED IN THE FUND AFTER COMPLETION OF TEN (10) YEARS OF SERVICE AND MEIIBERSaIIP IN THE UNI- FORMED FUND; OONTAINING A SAVING CLAUSE AND PROVIDING A PENALTY." The bill was assigned No. 7983 and given its first reading. Mayor Majerus noted the presence of another bill on the City Clerk's docket which designates the Tivoli building as an historic landmark; however, it was found to be in conflict with Section 34-113.2 of the City's historic preserva- tion ordinance, as detailed in the October 1, 1990, memo from City Attorney Dennis Kay. This section states that restrictions may not be placed on inte- rior alterations of a privately awned building. Mayor Majerus said the City Attorney will redraft the bill, but Council must decide haw it wants this done. Mr. Adams, liaison to the Historic Preservation Commission, suggested removing the portion of the bill on page 2, Section 34-126.2.A. Larxmark Regulations, that refers to the interior of the building. He felt the only historic part of the building was the facade. Mr. Schoomer said he was not sure this building should be designated at all, because he believed the City could control its development by putting restric- tions on proposed changes to the property. Mr. Price asked what the City will gain if this building is designated an his- toric lan mark. Mayor Majerus said particular features of the building that should be saved will be protected; otherwise the developer can change or de- stroy at will. She felt the front facade should be retained as is but not the rest of the building. In response to Mr. Price, Ms. Glassman said her opinion was that development of the building would not be hindered if designation was limited only to the front facade; otherwise, it could be hampered because of the large number of restrictions placed on possible interior changes. Mrs. Schuman shared the concerns about not designating the building major success with historic buildings interior pointing out that , in University City has resulted from adaptive reuse coupled with a lot of creative ability. Another emphasis has been to preserve the streetscape, she said. As liaison to the Historic Preservation Commission last year when new standards were adopted, she thought Council might want to reconsider some of the old standards, which discouraged changes but did not mandate almost total preservation. Mrs. Thompson commented that even historic buildings can be torn dawn, such as the historic church on Olive Boulevard. Ms. Glassman said designation doesn't always prevent demolition, but it does impose more restrictions and certainly impedes it. She noted that the Historic Preservation Commission must approve ILany demolition. Mayor Majerus ecus said if all agree, she will request the drafting of a new bill