10/14/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

in agreement. The idea of exempting certain things from Landmarks' preview caused a bit of concern. He said their responsibility as a commission is embodied in the initial charter language and simply exempting something and dumping it on the building commissioner's desk does not leave him, or Mrs. Lord, feeling very comfortable. It is putting part of the commission's job on his desk. The other area of discomfort has to do with the charter amendment that is up for a vote, and if it passes, it will reconstitute the commission and repopulate who is on the board. He wants to take the time to think it through carefully because he doesn't want to tie someone else's hands down the road. He would like to open it up for discussion to see what everyone thinks and then table it so everyone has the time to think about it before coming back and acting as a unit. He indicated he believes the charter amendment will be passed and the Landmarks Commission will become a more viable body because it is part of a local certified government that is able to obtain grant funding and do more for the residents in the district. Mr. O'Malley said the charter does not contain a mission statement and does not outline the power or scope of the commission's authority. The charter amendment will not do that either. Mr. Corell pointed out it will change who the people are. Mr. O'Malley said it will change the criteria for appointment, but the charter indicates the powers and duties of the Landmarks Commission are outlined by ordinance. He said ordinances cannot and should not contradict the charter. He said what they are doing with this ordinance is tweaking the parameters in authority. Right now in this chapter of the code there is a section that exempts certain activity. He said it was initially described as a minor change format, which is something familiar to the building commissioner and the councilman that introduced it. Mr. O'Malley then explained the process involved with a minor change. Mr. Corell said that he and others on the board may be more interested in the minor change format in some arrangement, rather than just offing something to the building commissioner and he then makes a decision that has some bearing on the historical integrity or character of the district. The board may find itself going to a national standard when it makes a decision on whether to allow something. The building commissioner on the other hand will be looking to the building codes. There are two different frames of reference. He thinks the preference would be to have certain exempted things that are the kind of things that would trigger the shortcut through the chairperson or a three meinber delegation of the committee, who will then answer to the cominittee members. It should be confined to within the committee. It would be easy to externalize it and have someone else make the choice and then have 9 people upset about it. It is giving the building department the authority to do something that is actually the job of the Landmarks Commission. Mr. Corell said he believes that the building department may actually prefer to send items that are minor under the context of the code to representatives on Landmarks. There would then be a time frame to respond back with a majority vote that the proposal does not need a full review. The board would exempt it from full review. He and Mrs. Lord would feel more comfortable if they answered for their own decisions, their own colleagues, instead of dumping it on the building coinmissioner's desk in the naine of expediency. He thinks stating the exempted iteins is a great trigger toward what they want to do. Mr. Corell said they do not want to tie up the residents or the building commissioner. Mr. O'Malley indicated the legislation was originally introduced by Councilman Gareau who made some effort to see to it that it was revived. Mr. Corell said now it seems as though this will get done. They need to engage what they want back to Council so it can be drafted properly and in a manner that will not tie the hands of future commissions. W. O'Malley said the original ordinance as it was drafted was in the format of a minor change and tried to identify some of the items that would trigger a minor change. It was reviewed by the building commissioner who did not seem to have preference on the minor change procedure, but more on the merits of the substance and some of the activities that were being identified. The building commissioner still has those concerns. Mr. O'Malley said it was his thought to move away from the minor change format and try to be more specific about the activities that don't warrant a full review by the commission. Mr. Corell said he believes the board is the one 3