My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10/08/2018 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2018
>
2018 Landmarks Commission
>
10/08/2018 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:46:00 PM
Creation date
1/24/2019 9:36:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2018
Board Name
Landmarks Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
10/8/2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
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
18-12455; Jean Podskalan; 25170 Butternut Ridge Road <br />Representatives: Jean Podskalan, owner <br />Ms. Podskalan wants to put a new roof on her house. Mr. Neville clarified that the current roof is <br />brown and the proposed color is charcoal. Ms. Podskalan believed it would look nicer. Mr. <br />Neville did not have a problem with the color change. <br />Mr. Kearney moved, seconded by Ms. Egan-Reeves, to approve the Certificate of <br />Appropriateness for a new roof for 18-12455; Jean Podskalan; 25170 Butternut Ridge <br />Road, motion passed 5-0. <br />COMMUNICATIONS <br />Chanter 165 Undates <br />Mr. Neville reviewed the difference between landmarks and historic districts. A landmark does <br />not have to be a certain age but there are other criteria that must be met. He thought a historic <br />district would need to influence the community for a period of time. Ms. Lieber reviewed the <br />options for homes in a historic district: a qualifying age only, qualitative criteria only, or a <br />combination of both. Mr. Neville believed it should be a combination of both and wanted to <br />increase the required age. He thought 50% of the properties should be at least 70 years old in <br />order to qualify, Ms. Egan-Reeves agreed. Mr. Kearney agreed with 70 years old but pointed out <br />that eventually all homes will become 70 years old. Mr. Dubowski believed the age should be 75 <br />years old because it sounds more historic but he did not have a problem with 70. Ms. Cardarelli <br />did not think there should be an age restriction so significant districts can be protected as soon as <br />possible. She added that an age would reduce the amount of eligible properties and suggested 50 <br />years because that is the National Register of Historic Places requirement. Mr. Neville was <br />concerned about setting the threshold too low and having to justify the district location. Ms. <br />Lieber suggested wording similar to: <br />"In designating new districts, the Landmarks Commission may designate any area within the <br />city as a historic district provided that at least 50% of the homes in the district are at least X <br />years old and the area meets one of the following criteria: <br />(1) Its character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural <br />characteristics of the city, state, or nation; <br />(2) Its location as a site of a significant historic event; <br />(3) Its identification with a person significant in our past; <br />(4) Its exemplification of the cultural, economic, or social heritage of the city, state, or <br />nation; <br />(5) Its portrayal of a group of people in an era of history, characterized by a distinctive <br />architectural style; <br />(6) Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of a building type or architectural style; <br />(7) Its einbodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship, <br />which represent a significant architectural innovation; (8) Its identification as the work of an architect or master builder whose work has influenced <br />the city, state, or nation; and
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.