Difference between revisions of "Miscellaneous Issues"

From AURAWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 9: Line 9:
 
|  We should add an item to factors the historic commission should be able to consider which is how the new use compared to the current use helps to solve our housing shortage.  This should not be the only factor to be considered but it should be allowed to be one consideration ||  
 
|  We should add an item to factors the historic commission should be able to consider which is how the new use compared to the current use helps to solve our housing shortage.  This should not be the only factor to be considered but it should be allowed to be one consideration ||  
 
23-7D-2020  B pdf 38
 
23-7D-2020  B pdf 38
|| Historic Preservation
+
|| [[Historic Preservation]]
 
|| Preservation Austin
 
|| Preservation Austin
  
Line 16: Line 16:
 
| At the very top Preservation Austin has a comment on the heading.  In their comment they want the applicant to do historic review instead of the city so the applicant takes on liability.  This means that no one will do a demo because they don't know how to do things like "newspaper research".  Additionally no one will want to take on the liability.  This means if Preservation Austin finds the first person to burp on Youtube lived in the house they can sue the applicant.  I am sure they would prefer this because suing the city is much more difficult.  This would have a chilling effect on new housing.  I would not respond to Preservation Austin but make a new comment.  ||  
 
| At the very top Preservation Austin has a comment on the heading.  In their comment they want the applicant to do historic review instead of the city so the applicant takes on liability.  This means that no one will do a demo because they don't know how to do things like "newspaper research".  Additionally no one will want to take on the liability.  This means if Preservation Austin finds the first person to burp on Youtube lived in the house they can sue the applicant.  I am sure they would prefer this because suing the city is much more difficult.  This would have a chilling effect on new housing.  I would not respond to Preservation Austin but make a new comment.  ||  
 
23-7D-1020  pdf 30  
 
23-7D-1020  pdf 30  
|| Historic Preservation
+
|| [[Historic Preservation]]
 
|| Preservation Austin
 
|| Preservation Austin
  
Line 26: Line 26:
 
*[https://codenext.civicomment.org/chapter-23-7-building-demolition-and-relocation-permits-special-requirement-permits-historic?#p29 23-7D-1020 C-1 pdf 30]
 
*[https://codenext.civicomment.org/chapter-23-7-building-demolition-and-relocation-permits-special-requirement-permits-historic?#p29 23-7D-1020 C-1 pdf 30]
 
*[https://codenext.civicomment.org/chapter-23-7-building-demolition-and-relocation-permits-special-requirement-permits-historic?#p32 23-7D-1040 pdf 33]
 
*[https://codenext.civicomment.org/chapter-23-7-building-demolition-and-relocation-permits-special-requirement-permits-historic?#p32 23-7D-1040 pdf 33]
|| Historic Preservation
+
|| [[Historic Preservation]]
 
||  
 
||  
  
Line 33: Line 33:
 
| The status quo should be maintained. This encourages us to look for historic structures throughout the city. Not wait until a demo permit is issued and then run out and try to make it historic. This leads to affordability issues because it adds more delays to an already complicated entitlement process. Instead we should look for historic structures neighborhood by neighborhood instead of waiting until the permit process has already started  ||  
 
| The status quo should be maintained. This encourages us to look for historic structures throughout the city. Not wait until a demo permit is issued and then run out and try to make it historic. This leads to affordability issues because it adds more delays to an already complicated entitlement process. Instead we should look for historic structures neighborhood by neighborhood instead of waiting until the permit process has already started  ||  
 
[https://codenext.civicomment.org/chapter-23-7-building-demolition-and-relocation-permits-special-requirement-permits-historic#p31 23-7D-1030 C pdf 32]
 
[https://codenext.civicomment.org/chapter-23-7-building-demolition-and-relocation-permits-special-requirement-permits-historic#p31 23-7D-1030 C pdf 32]
|| Historic Preservation
+
|| [[Historic Preservation]]
 
||  
 
||  
  
Line 40: Line 40:
 
| Preservation Austin has a huge number of comments on something called "Demolition by Neglect".  They want harsher penalities etc.  Basically if a Preservation Austin is able to declare a place historic now the owner must pay the taxes and the upkeep.  Because of the high cost this can frequently lead to financial ruin (like the owner in Clarksville).  This might be a reach but we should ask the city to pay for maintenance when a property is zoned historic against an owners wishes.  This would make the city only want to declare properties historic that were truly historic.     
 
| Preservation Austin has a huge number of comments on something called "Demolition by Neglect".  They want harsher penalities etc.  Basically if a Preservation Austin is able to declare a place historic now the owner must pay the taxes and the upkeep.  Because of the high cost this can frequently lead to financial ruin (like the owner in Clarksville).  This might be a reach but we should ask the city to pay for maintenance when a property is zoned historic against an owners wishes.  This would make the city only want to declare properties historic that were truly historic.     
 
|| [https://codenext.civicomment.org/chapter-23-7-building-demolition-and-relocation-permits-special-requirement-permits-historic?#p34 23-7D-1030 C pdf 34]
 
|| [https://codenext.civicomment.org/chapter-23-7-building-demolition-and-relocation-permits-special-requirement-permits-historic?#p34 23-7D-1030 C pdf 34]
|| Historic Preservation
+
|| [[Historic Preservation]]
 
||  
 
||  
 
Preservation Austin
 
Preservation Austin

Revision as of 21:11, 27 May 2017

This is a catch-all page for CodeNEXT suggestions on subjects that may or may not have their own articles yet. Feel free to leave comment suggestions here if you're not sure where they go.

Recommendations

Comment Page/Section Issues Opposing Commenter, if any
We should add an item to factors the historic commission should be able to consider which is how the new use compared to the current use helps to solve our housing shortage. This should not be the only factor to be considered but it should be allowed to be one consideration

23-7D-2020 B pdf 38

Historic Preservation Preservation Austin


At the very top Preservation Austin has a comment on the heading. In their comment they want the applicant to do historic review instead of the city so the applicant takes on liability. This means that no one will do a demo because they don't know how to do things like "newspaper research". Additionally no one will want to take on the liability. This means if Preservation Austin finds the first person to burp on Youtube lived in the house they can sue the applicant. I am sure they would prefer this because suing the city is much more difficult. This would have a chilling effect on new housing. I would not respond to Preservation Austin but make a new comment.

23-7D-1020 pdf 30

Historic Preservation Preservation Austin


Historic review should be trigged by a property being 80 years old not 50. Preservation Austin didn't comment here but elsewhere they argue it should be reduced to 45 elsewhere Historic Preservation


The status quo should be maintained. This encourages us to look for historic structures throughout the city. Not wait until a demo permit is issued and then run out and try to make it historic. This leads to affordability issues because it adds more delays to an already complicated entitlement process. Instead we should look for historic structures neighborhood by neighborhood instead of waiting until the permit process has already started

23-7D-1030 C pdf 32

Historic Preservation


Preservation Austin has a huge number of comments on something called "Demolition by Neglect". They want harsher penalities etc. Basically if a Preservation Austin is able to declare a place historic now the owner must pay the taxes and the upkeep. Because of the high cost this can frequently lead to financial ruin (like the owner in Clarksville). This might be a reach but we should ask the city to pay for maintenance when a property is zoned historic against an owners wishes. This would make the city only want to declare properties historic that were truly historic. 23-7D-1030 C pdf 34 Historic Preservation

Preservation Austin