06/08/2009 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LANDMARKS COIVIMISSI01\1 CITY OF N0RTH OLMS'I'ED MEETING MINUTES FOR JUleTE 8, 2009 ROLL CALL Mr. Schumann called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in Council Chambers and Mr. Dubowski led the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Paul Schumann, Tom Dubowski, Maryellen Davis, John Lasko, Dale Thomas Absent: Don Rerko, Larry Orlowski, Jeff Herwick, Thomas Schock Staff: Planning Director Wenger, Assistant Law Director Bryan O'Malley, Secretary Tricia Granfors REVIEW AND CORRECTION OF MINUTES Mr. Dubowski moved, seconded by Ms. Davis, to approve the May 11, 2009 minutes, which were unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS Citv of Lakewood Amended Ordinance 105-07 Mr. Schumann likes portions of Lakewood's legislation. The affirmative maintenance language is strong and requires residents to maintain their homes. Some North Olmsted Historic District homes have been allowed to deteriorate. Ms. Wenger said the North Olmsted codes are similar to Lakewood's, just organized differently. In North Olmsted, maintenance requirements are part of the building code; Lakewood places them in the zoning code. Their historic districts are treated like an overlay district. Different boards and commissions in Lakewood have different responsibilities than our boards and commissions. The Lakewood Planning Commission, through this ordinance, has some responsibility for qualifying projects and takes more of an active role than the North Olmsted Planning Commission where it concerns landmarlcs districts. It is their architectural board of review that issues certificates of appropriateness. In Lakewood they have a Heritage Advisory Board, which does not have as much authority as North Olmsted's Landmarks Commission does as a chartered entity. Mr. Schock was interested in the demolition regulations. According to their ordinance, if the City of Lakewood believes a developer did not put forth enough effort to preserve, save, or move a property, the denial of a certificate of appropriateness would stand. The developer would be required to go through a long, complex process proving economic hardship and then request a certificate of economic hardship. It does provide additional incentives for developers to put forth more effort in trying to save a structure. There are some aspects in the code that are worth discussion. Mr. O'Malley agreed with Ms. Wenger. A few ideas are good, such as definitions and standards for economic hardships and requirements for negotiations, but we have many of those elements in our code; there is no reason to start from scratch. North Olmsted has already established many of the same requirements for the designation of historic properties and districts. One concern is of a permit processes that take in excess of a year to navigate. If the regulations are that