12/10/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

sJ .... M Mr. O'Malley said the Commission should not speculate on what might happen with other properties in the district but base discussion on the information at hand. The off site traffic studies are being done. The owner can use the property within certain parameters. The driveway is part of the discussion but not the development which is outside of the district. Mr. O'Malley noted that the Commission should review the demolition impact before making the review on new construction. Any determination should be completed with written findings for the determination. Mr. O'Malley noted that the Landmarks Commission's authority varies based on the proposal and whether it is demolition or new construction. The code contemplates a 6 month moratorium on demolition; however, from that point the demolition can be completed by the owner. He advised there should be sepaxate Certificates of Appropriateness for demolition and the proposed improvements. Mr. Schumann asked what guarantee there was that the development would be completed if the structure were demolished. 1VIr. O'Malley said building permits must be issued for new development. Building permits can be required before a demolition permit is issued; however, there is no way to guarantee of the completion. Mr. Lasko said the impact of traffic in the area is a realistic concern. Ms. Wenger said engineering studies were underway to determine the impact of the traffic and the feasibility of a turn lane. However, preliminary trip generation indicates additional traffic from the development would be insignificant to the existing traffic on the road. Mr. Orlowski suggested lowering the speed limit on Butternut Ridge Road to reduce its use as a cut through street. He also thought a turn lane would require several hundred feet of road widening, which would bring the street closer to existing homes. Councilman Barker suggested the developer consider a different point of entry of off SR 252. Mr. Schock proposed the developer consider keeping the home in place and removing the gaxage to accommodate the driveway. The home could be restored and preserved as unit 1 of the development. Mr. Liggett stated he would review that possibility. Mr. Lasko said that having reviewed the 'documentation of the home in question, he does not believe the structure has historic significance; it is simply old. That does not give it the criteria for historical significance. It has no offieial plaque or historic designation. The analysis of the Ohio inventory form suggests it is a patchwork structure. The Landmark district should not be a static environment. In a community wide standpoint, the home has no significance. Mr. Thomas noted that significance might increase down the road; homes before 1920 were the criteria for the survey. The homes in the district may continue to evolve. Mr. Schumann noted that Butternut Ridge is a varied historical collection of architecture. 1950 is currently considered historic. Mr. O'Malley recommended the Commission obtain the applicant's agreement to table the matter pending additional study and information. Mr. Lasko summarized the various requests and recommendations of the Commission including: • Moving the structure to a better location for preservation • Using the structure as a rehabilitated unit #1 for the cluster development • Reviewing the analysis of a more extensive traffic study • The proposed A units to blend in with the district architecture 4