OG&E Energy Center

[gopokes88]

Oh, I'm not happy with the city on this either. There's plenty of scorn to go around. Lackmeyer, the Oklahoman, everybody deserves some blame on this.

I had mixed feelings on Stage Center. I didn't love it, but it was kind of neat. But it was way better than just a fenced off pond.

I had no feelings towards it either way, but I can understand why it was architecturally significant, but not functional. Had they halted demo it would still be standing today collecting dust, but there would still be a chance someone with a bunch of money could sweep in and save it, that chance is now gone.

Just lots of incompetence from the city, which is to be expected of governments. Hopefully they learned, but yeah it's government they don't learn.

In the future though, I'll be on the team that says no more tearing down significant buildings without a concrete plan in place to rebuild them.

[hoya]

^^^

I'm definitely with you on that.

[BDP]

I had no feelings towards it either way, but I can understand why it was architecturally significant, but not functional. Had they halted demo it would still be standing today collecting dust, but there would still be a chance someone with a bunch of money could sweep in and save it, that chance is now gone.

Honestly, I think once the site was in play the type, of groups / foundations that have the resources to have done something with Stage Center would not have wanted to get involved. We have to remember that these charities rely on the business community for a lot of funding and support, so they don't want to ruffle those feathers. I'm not claiming conspiracy or anything, just the normal politics of fund raising in OKC. None of this happens in a vacuum.

[gopokes88]

Honestly, I think once the site was in play the type, of groups / foundations that have the resources to have done something with Stage Center would not have wanted to get involved. We have to remember that these charities rely on the business community for a lot of funding and support, so they don't want to ruffle those feathers. I'm not claiming conspiracy or anything, just the normal politics of fund raising in OKC. None of this happens in a vacuum.

Then let it continue to sit and collect dust, and if someone came up with a replacement plan that was ready to go, then they can demo it. But letting it collect dust at least left the chance that someone with deep pockets and a creative mind could have found a way to make it viable for something. That chance is gone.

[2Lanez]

Which is included in his plan.

Buy SC land.
Demo SC
Get financing with Clayco for towers from city
OGE moves in, leases other towers.

That was always the plan, wasn't a great mystery.

You're wrong. He did not say he needed TIF money at project start: Downtown Oklahoma City to get new tower | News OK

"Williams also could not say whether he might seek tax increment financing or other public funding to assist in the development of the tower or an adjoining parking garage."

Heck the fact he was basically the cover for OGE to get a shiny new office tower while crying poverty and needing rate increases wasn't a secret.

Again, you're wrong. He stated he was buyer/developer for the property only: OKC Central Chat transcript, July 26, 2013 | News OK

Gary T 10:03 a.m. Now, a couple of Mystery Tower questions: 1) Since Rainey Williams (the person who bought Stage Center) is also a Director of OGE Enogex GP, LLC, is it safe to say the anchor tenant discussed in the article will either be OGE or the Enogex/Centerpoint entity?

Steve Lackmeyer 10:07 a.m. Thanks Gary. No, it's not safe to assume the tower anchor will be associated with OG&E, Enogex or Centerpoint. It's possible. But as I've said before, there are a lot of missing pieces. Consider what I've told you before; in March a completely different developer was on the verge of getting this contract for the Stage Center property. It was not a reflection on that developer that the deal fell through. He had other tenants lined up, and it is still quite possible he may build a tower elsewhere downtown. In the meantime, let my article sink in - this tower is being built by Rainey Williams, not OG&E, not Enogex, not Centerpoint. Could any mix of these three end up as tenants? Maybe. But don't make any assumptions. As for those who question whether Rainey Williams is just a front, and question his capacity for doing this development, well, you don't know Rainey Williams.

Only in November 2014, 17 months after the development was announced, five months after Stage Center demo, was the record-setting TIF request was made public: Clayco gets chosen for Oklahoma City's Stage Center block, seeks unprecedented tax financing assistance | News OK

Clayco’s plans include a $200 million, 25-story office tower at the northeast corner of Hudson and Sheridan and a $67.5 million, 26-story apartment tower at the corner of Sheridan and Walker. Both buildings are to be built on the north half of the block that was home to Stage Center and that Rainey Williams Jr. bought last year from the Oklahoma City Community Foundation.

The south half of the block is controlled by the Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority. Though Clayco was designated developer on Monday by Urban Renewal, it still must negotiate a request to create a new, 25-year tax increment finance district that would provide $60.8 million in TIF for the proposed 25-story office tower, which they forecast to cost $216 million. The company is asking for another $19.7 million for the planned $70 million, 26-story 253-unit apartment tower.

Cathy O’Connor said Clayco is asking for another $62.1 million in tax increment financing for the north half of the block. All together, the proposed new tax increment district would match Project 180, the rebuilding of streets and public spaces launched in 2009 when a similar new district was created at the request of Devon Energy as it prepared to build its new headquarters.

In that project, however, all money went toward downtown improvement and economic development, and not toward the construction of Devon Energy Center. The Clayco proposal requests that most of the tax increment created by the development go back toward its construction.

“It’s well beyond what Oklahoma City typically allocates to projects,” O’Connor said in recommending Clayco to the Urban Renewal board. “Even if Clayco is designated, we have a lot of work to do in negotiating the project terms.”

[Spartan]

See if you can post without insulting people then maybe you won't get 'trolled'...

I am sorry to see you say that, as if that's a unique thing that I do. I thought you were a little above that.

Yet that's exactly what's happening. The only comments from government in Steve's article were positive-spin comments from Jim Couch. The city isn't holding developers accountable, and journalists aren't holding the city accountable... So I guess we'll just write this off as an 'oops,' and do it again in a few years?

Depends. Anyone got a good landmark that they want gone? Any historic buildings that may have looked at you the wrong way?

[gopokes88]

You're wrong. He did not say he needed TIF money at project start: Downtown Oklahoma City to get new tower | News OK





Again, you're wrong. He stated he was buyer/developer for the property only: OKC Central Chat transcript, July 26, 2013 | News OK



Only in November 2014, 17 months after the development was announced, five months after Stage Center demo, was the record-setting TIF request was made public: Clayco gets chosen for Oklahoma City's Stage Center block, seeks unprecedented tax financing assistance | News OK

Reading between the lines, or this board, it was pretty obvious what was going on.

I don't fault Rainey. This is on the city.

[Spartan]

They could have easily obtained a building permit if that had been a condition... They had already received design approval and spent a ton of money on architects and engineers.


It's a silly idea that needs to be dropped. It's not going to happen and wouldn't make a difference if it did.

It has in other cities. Like Cleveland. Like Chicago I think. And no, please don't suggest that I just stay there because you don't want to hear it.

Many of the buildings that were demolished would have eventually met that fate anyway. It's probably a lot less expensive to have the parcels cleared and available for development than to wait on something down the road.

Why have a vision, if your aiming pretty low? There's a difference between okay and world-class. You're wrong as it relates to OKC's history, where we tore down a lot of world-class things.. the Criterion.. five or six other theaters.. a huge core of department stores (Magnificent Mile anyone?).. a ton of historic hotels that eclipsed the Skirvin's grandeur, like the Biltmore. Cincy has a department store called the Shillito that has won accolades as one of the coolest adaptive reuses on the planet. In Cleveland, an old theater is being repurposed into an open-air market, and another might become a rock climbing gym. These are all world-class things. We tore down our world-class opportunities for.. the Century Center parking garage.. the Cox Convention Center (no, not world-class, in case you were wondering) and more parking garages.

Okay, I'm going to make a respectful suggestion on this thread - one I will promise to abide myself (no clean hands here) - let's *NOT* turn this thread into ten pages of remorse (or, in my case, rejoicing) about the loss of the Stage Center. It's gone, bad or good, loved or hated, useful or not, it's gone, gone forever, and right now the constructive discussion has to focus on what can happen with the properties going forward. If folks want to lament, celebrate, or argue the SC all over again, that's fine, but let's do it in a different thread.

We need accountability. We have a long arc of history in OKC; we aren't the young community we sometimes claim to be. We have a lot of lessons to learn from, and now is as good a time as ever to open those archives. We need to stop doing this awful thing we keep doing.

Truthfully, we need public accountability. That means calling people out and making powerful, wealthy people uncomfortable.

Rainey Willaims needs someone to stick a camera in his face and say "why'd you eff this up, and don't give me that 'falling oil prices' excuse. Why did you tear down Stage Center if you knew you were going to need XYZ dollars of public financing?" Somebody needs to be at his house, today, asking where his 'world class' development is. Asking if he ever had any real plan to see this through. Asking if he was just a front man for OG&E so they could tear down Stage Center without public scrutiny. He needs to be ambushed at his front door by a TV camera crew, and when it's over he needs to be pissed. We need someone to ask OG&E execs those questions too.

We need people who have a public voice, who are willing to make people mad.

We need public accountability, too. The thing is that, speaking in terms of the public sector's role, downtown needs to be planned for stability. We need plans and developments to respond to MAPS investments, not oil prices. I tend to think that the MAPS projects create more than enough value to keep redeveloping downtown. That needs to be our sole focus, and not this oil thing, which has really overshadowed MAPS3. We let the oil people control the agenda for MAPS3. We let them (SandRidge) tear down some of our best old buildings that would have injected housing more directly into the MAPS footprint than any of our big "Dallas Donut" projects (LEVEL, Edge, 21C apts, Steelyard, Metropolitan, etc). We let the oil thing take precedence over our interest in maximizing and protecting the MAPS investment. That's the problem here. Yet we love giving MAPS the credit because it's a better "story."

[Pete]

It has in other cities. Like Cleveland. Like Chicago I think. And no, please don't suggest that I just stay there because you don't want to hear it.

Please provide specific examples of the details of this stipulation in other cities and how it has worked.

I asked about this before and nobody was able to provide answers.


If there are good, successful examples to follow, then by all means we should pursue something similar.

[OkieDave]

Discussion at yesterday's (1/12/16) city council meeting of the OG&E ruse, the deprivation of the council's ability to make policy decision as to whether TIF funds should go to a public utility company whose regulation by the corporation commission ensures a profit, a very expensive recent poll (performed perhaps by OG&E) and the shortcomings of our media. Runs from 1:00:23 through 1:06:52.https://youtu.be/Fncd4nhHFO0?t=1h22s

[Spartan]

Please provide specific examples of the details of this stipulation in other cities and how it has worked.

I asked about this before and nobody was able to provide answers.


If there are good, successful examples to follow, then by all means we should pursue something similar.

161.01 Declaration of Public Policy and Purpose

Council hereby declares as a matter of public policy that the preservation, protection, perpetuation and use of areas, places, buildings, structures, works of art and other objects having a special historical, community or aesthetic interest or value is a public necessity and is required in the interest of the health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the people. The purpose of this chapter is to:

(a) Safeguard the heritage of the City by preserving sites and structures which reflect elements of the City's cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history;

(b) Stabilize and improve property values;

(c) Strengthen the economy of the City;

(d) Protect and enhance the City's attractions to residents, tourists and visitors, and serve as a support and stimulus to business and industry;

(e) Enhance the visual and aesthetic character, diversity and interest of the City;

(f) Foster civic pride in the beauty and notable accomplishments of the past;

(g) Promote the use and preservation of historic sites and structures for the education and general welfare of the people of the City; and

(h) Take whatever steps are necessary to safeguard the property rights of the owners whose property is declared to be a landmark or is located in an area designated as a landmark district.
(Ord. No. 505-72. Passed 6-19-72, eff. 6-23-72)

161.02 Definitions
Back to Top

As used in this chapter, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:

(a) "Alteration" means any material change in the external architectural features of any improvement which has been designated a landmark or which is situated in a landmark district, less than demolition, removal or construction of any such improvement.

(b) "Applicant" means any person, persons, association, partnership or corporation who applies for a certificate of appropriateness in order to undertake any environmental change as property subject to this chapter.

(c) "City Council" means Council of the City of Cleveland.

(d) "Commission" means the Cleveland Landmarks Commission established under the provisions of this chapter.

(e) "Environmental change" means any alteration, demolition, removal or construction of any property subject to the provisions of this chapter.

(f) "Improvement" means any place, building, structure, work of art or similar object constituting a physical betterment of real property, or any part of such betterment.

(g) "Improvement parcel" means the unit of property which includes a physical betterment constituting an improvement and the land embracing the site thereof, which is treated as a single entity for the purpose of levying real estate taxes. However, any vacant parcel of land is excluded.

(h) "Landmark" means any improvement which has special character or special historical or aesthetic value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, State, or the United States and which has been designated as a landmark pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. However, "landmark" may also include the improvement parcel, or part thereof, on which a landmark is situated.

(i) "Landmark district" means any area designated by the Commission as an area containing any physical features or improvements or both which are of historical, social, cultural, architectural or aesthetic significance to the City of Cleveland, State of Ohio, or the United States, and cause such area to constitute a distinctive section of the City of Cleveland.

(j) "Member" means any member of the Commission.

(k) "Owner" means the owner of record and includes the plural as well as the singular.
(Ord. No. 2458-79. Passed 12-17-79, eff. 12-19-79)

161.03 Landmarks Commission, Composition and Terms
Back to Top

There is hereby created the Cleveland Landmarks Commission. The Commission shall consist of eleven members, seven of whom shall be appointed by the Mayor, subject to the confirmation of Council. The remaining members shall be the Commissioner of Architecture, or his designee, the Director of the City Planning Commission, or his designee, who shall act as Secretary of the Landmarks Commission and two members appointed by the Council President to serve during the term of such Council. Members to be appointed by the Mayor shall be chosen from nominations made by the Western Reserve Historical Society, the Cleveland Chapter of the American Institute of Architects and the Early Settlers Association. At least one member shall be an owner of commercial or industrial real property; at least one member shall be a registered architect; at least one member shall be a historian qualified in the field of historic preservation; at least one member shall be a licensed real estate broker; at least one member shall be an attorney; and all members shall have, to the highest extent practicable, a known interest in landmarks preservation.

The terms of members appointed by the Mayor next after the expiration of the two-year terms of the members of the Commission existing on the effective date of this section shall be: two (2) members, two-year terms; and five (5) members, four-year terms. Thereafter, the terms of all members appointed by the Mayor shall be four (4) years. The terms of members appointed by the President of the Council shall be four (4) years. Members may be reappointed. Members appointed by the Council President shall be appointed for terms of four (4) years.

The members shall select a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman to serve for two (2) year terms. The members shall serve without compensation.
(Ord. No. 3143-83. Passed 6-18-84, eff. 6-22-84)

161.04 Designation of Landmarks and Landmarks Districts
Back to Top

(a) In considering the designation of any area, place, building, structure, work of art of similar object in the City as a landmark or landmark district, the Commission shall apply the following criteria with respect to such property:

(1) Its character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, State or the United States;

(2) Its location as a site of a significant historic event;

(3) Its identification with a person who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the City;

(4) Its exemplification of the cultural, economic, social or historic heritage of the City;

(5) Its portrayal of the environment of a group of people in an era of history characterized by a distinctive architectural style;

(6) Its embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type or specimen;

(7) Its identification as the work of an architect or master builder whose individual work has influenced the development of the City;

(8) Its embodiment of elements of architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship which represent a significant architectural innovation;

(9) Its relationship to other distinctive areas which are eligible for preservation according to a plan based on an historic, cultural or architectural motif;

(10) Its unique location or singular physical characteristic representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

(b) If the Commission finds that any area, place, building, structure, work of art or similar object in the City meets the criteria in (a)(1) above, it shall propose its designation as a landmark or landmark district, and take the following actions:

(1) For designation of an area, place, building, structure, work of art or similar object as a landmark, the Landmarks Commission shall cause written notice of the proposed designation to be given by regular mail to the owner of record. Whenever possible, the Commission shall secure the owner's written consent to submit the proposed designation, together with its recommendation and findings of fact, to Council. In the event that the owner refuses or declines to give written consent to the proposed designation, the Commission shall schedule a public hearing on the question of the proposed designation, and shall cause written notice to be given by regular mail to the owner of record. The Commission also shall cause a legal notice to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City setting forth the nature of the hearing, the property involved and the date, time and place of the scheduled public hearing.

(2) For designation of an area as a Landmark District, the Landmarks Commission shall schedule a public hearing on the question of the proposed designation, and shall cause written notice of the hearing and the proposed designation to be given by regular mail to the owners of record of the property in the proposed district. The Commission also shall cause a legal notice to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City setting forth the nature of the hearing, the property involved and the date, time and place of the scheduled public hearing.

(3) The Commission shall conduct the public hearings described in divisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section and provide a reasonable opportunity for all interested parties to express their opinions under such rules as the Commission may adopt for the purpose of governing the proceedings of the hearings. Each speaker shall be fully identified as to name, address and the interests which he represents.

(4) The Commission shall make a determination with respect to the proposed designation in writing at its next meeting after the initial hearing date. The Commission shall set forth in its recommendation the findings of fact that constitute the basis for its decision and shall transmit the recommendation to Council.

(5) The Council may designate by ordinance the areas, places, buildings, structures, works of art and other similar objects as a landmark or landmark district. Council may, in its discretion, hold public hearings on any proposed designation, whether designation is proposed only with the consent of the owner, or after public hearings before the Commission. Before passage, the ordinance designating an area, place, building, structure, work of art or similar object in the City as a landmark or landmark district shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation.

(6) As soon as is reasonably possible after passage of an ordinance designating an area, place, building, structure, work of art or similar object in the City as a landmark or landmark district, the Commission shall notify the Department of Building and Housing of the official designation.

(7) For designation of an area, place, building, structure, work of art of similar object in the City as a landmark, the Commission shall file with the County Recorder a affidavit briefly stating the fact of designation and the number and passage date of the ordinance making the designation. The Commission, further, shall send by certified mail a copy of the ordinance and a copy of the affidavit filed with the County Recorder to the owner of record.

(8) For areas designated as a landmark district, the designation shall be made upon the Building Zone Maps of the City of Cleveland on file in the office of the Clerk of Council and on file in the office of the City Planning Commission by the appropriate person designated for this purpose by the City Planning Commission.

(9) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, Council may rescind the designation of any area, place, building, structure, work of art or similar object as a landmark or landmark district by ordinance. Passage of such an ordinance shall relieve the owner of such area, place, building, structure, work of art or similar object from any duties or penalties contained in this chapter.
(Ord. No. 1281-06. Passed 12-11-06, eff. 12-15-06)

161.05 Regulation of Environmental Changes; Certificate of Appropriateness
Back to Top

No person owning, renting or occupying property which has been designated a landmark or which is situated in a designated landmark district shall make any environmental change in such property unless a certificate of appropriateness has been previously issued by the Commission with respect to such environmental change. The following procedures shall apply to all alterations, demolitions, removals or constructions of such property in the City:

(a) Any application to the Division of Building and Housing for a building permit for an environmental change shall also be deemed an application for a certificate of appropriateness, and shall be forwarded to the Commission, together with copies of all detailed plans, designs, elevations, specifications and documents relating thereto, within seven days after receipt thereof. An application for a certificate of appropriateness may be filed by the applicant directly with the Commission at the same time that an application for a building permit is filed or in lieu of filing for a building permit, if no building permit is required for the proposed environmental change.

(b) The Commission shall evaluate applications to determine whether or not the environmental change proposed by the applicant will adversely affect any significant historical or aesthetic feature of the property and to determine whether or not the environmental change proposed by the applicant is consistent with the spirit and purposes of this chapter.

(1) In evaluating applications for alterations or construction of property, the Commission shall consider the following standards created by the U.S. Department of the Interior:

A. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment;

B. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alternation of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided;

C. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken;

D. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved;

E. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved;

F. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence;

G. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible;

H. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken;

I. New additions, exterior, alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment; and

J. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

(2) In evaluating applications for demolition or removal of property, the Commission shall consider the following standards:

A. The architectural and historic significance of the subject building or structure;

B. The significance of the building or structure in contributing to the architectural or historic character of its environs;

C. In the case of a request to move a building or other structure, the relationship between the location of the subject building or structure and its overall significance;

D. The present and potential economic viability of the subject building or structure, given its physical condition and marketability;

E. If the demolition will remedy conditions imminently dangerous to life, health, or property, as determined in writing by the Division of Building and Housing, the Division of Fire or the Department of Public Health; and

F. The appropriateness of the proposed new structure or use and its impact on the surrounding community.

(c) If the Commission finds that the environmental change proposed by the applicant will not adversely affect any significant historical or aesthetic feature of the property and is appropriate and consistent with the spirit and purposes of this chapter, or will remedy conditions imminently dangerous to life, health or property, as determined in writing by the Division of Building and Housing or the Division of Fire or the Department of Public Health, then the Commission shall issue a certificate of appropriateness.

(d) If the Commission finds that the environmental change proposed by the applicant will adversely affect any significant historical or aesthetic feature of the property or is inappropriate or inconsistent with the spirit and purposes of this chapter, the Commission may either deny the application or delay action on the application. Any decision to delay action on the application shall be by mutual agreement of the Commission and the applicant and shall be for a period not to exceed six (6) months. During the delay period, the Commission shall conduct further investigation with regard to the proposed environmental change, conduct negotiations with the applicant and any other party in an effort to find a means of preserving the property, or explore alternatives to the proposed environmental change. The Commission may also investigate the feasibility of all available ways and means of preserving the improvement, including without limitation, inducing by contract or other consideration the creation of covenants restricting the use of property, leasing and subleasing the property for the purposes of preservation and acquiring by eminent domain or contract or conveyance all or any part of or interest in the property.

(e) At the end of the delay period, the Commission shall either approve or deny the application, or delay action. A decision to delay action, at the end of one delay period, shall be by mutual agreement of the Commission and the applicant and shall be for a period not to exceed six (6) months. The Commission shall only agree to a second and final delay period if the Commission determines that this additional time period may be useful in securing an alternative to the proposed environmental change. At the end of the second and final delay period, the Commission shall either approve or deny the application for a certificate of appropriateness.

(f) Upon the issuance, denial or a delay in the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness, the Commission shall give written notices of the issuance, denial or delay in the issuance to the applicant and the Division of Building and Housing. The Commission shall provide written notice of the issuance, denial or delay in the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness to the applicant and the Division of Building and Housing within forty five (45) days of the receipt by the Commission of an application from either the applicant or the Division of Building and Housing.

(g) If no action has been taken by the Commission on an application for a certificate of appropriateness to approve, deny or delay action within forty-five (45) days after such application has been received by the Commission, the certificate of appropriateness shall be deemed issued.
(Ord. No. 1486-01. Passed 3-25-02, eff. 3-28-02)

161.051 Certificate of Appropriateness Review Fee
Back to Top

(a) A review fee shall be paid to the Landmarks Commission when the Landmarks Commission's approval is required by the Codified Ordinances for issuance of a Building Permit, in accordance with the following schedule to cover the cost of review by the Landmarks Commission payable subsequent to the Landmarks Commission approval, upon issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.

(b) The review fee shall be determined on the basis of the following schedule which "improvement cost" is that portion of a project's total improvement cost attributable to exterior improvements requiring review and approval by the Landmarks Commission:


Applicable
Improvement Cost Fee Rate
Less than $5,000 1.5% of the amount over $0
$5,001-$10,000 $75.00 + 1.0% of the amount over $5,000
$10,001-$100,000 $125.00 + 0.5% of the amount over $10,000
$100,001-$500,000 $575.00 + 0.2% of the amount over $100,000
$500,001-$5,000,000 $1,375.00 + 0.05% of the amount over $500,000
More than $5,000,000 $3,625.00 + 0.02% of the amount over $5,000,000

(c) Exemptions. No fee payments shall be required for the renovation or alteration of existing single-family, two-family and three-family residences or for construction or alteration of accessory structures on the property of such existing residence.

(d) All fees generated pursuant to this section shall be deposited into the fund or funds which are designated for use by the Landmarks Commission, and shall be used for Landmark Commission purposes.
(Ord. No. 329-99. Passed 6-7-99, eff. 6-16-99)

161.06 Powers and Duties of Commission
Back to Top

The Commission shall have the following powers and duties in addition to those otherwise specified in this chapter:

(a) The Commission shall conduct a continuing survey of all areas, places, buildings, structures, works of art or similar objects in the City which the Commission, on the basis of information available or presented to it, has reason to believe are or will be eligible for designation as landmarks or landmark districts;

(b) The Commission shall work for the continuing education of the citizens of the City with respect to the historic and architectural heritage of the City and the landmarks and landmark districts designated under the provisions of this chapter. It shall keep current and publish a register of landmarks and landmark districts;

(c) The Commission shall have authority to establish, within the spirit and purposes of this chapter, criteria, rules and regulations for evaluating applications for certificates of appropriateness submitted to it and the manner in which they shall be processed;

(d) The Commission may accept the services on a permanent or part-time basis of technical experts and such other persons as may be required to perform its duties.
(Ord. No. 339-73. Passed 3-12-73, eff. 3-20-73)

161.07 Certain Changes Not Prohibited
Back to Top

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature of any property which has been designated a landmark or which is situated in a designated landmark district that does not involve a change in design, material color or outer appearance thereof, nor to prevent any environmental change that the Division of Building, Division of Fire or Department of Public Health and Welfare shall certify in writing is required by the public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous condition.
(Ord. No. 84-71. Passed 6-21-71, eff. 6-23-71)

161.08 Plaques Identifying Cleveland Landmarks and Landmark Districts
Back to Top

The Secretary to the Landmarks Commission is hereby authorized to enter into contract for the making of plaques which identify Cleveland landmarks and landmark districts and to sell such plaques to be used to mark individual landmarks and properties within landmark districts at a fee of two hundred dollars ($200.00) per plaque.
(Ord. No. 1881-93. Passed 9-13-93, eff. 9-16-93)

161.09 Minimum Maintenance Requirements
Back to Top

(a) Every Owner, operator, or agent of any property which has been designated a Landmark or is situated in a designated Landmark district shall keep in good repair all of the exterior portions of each Improvement and Improvement parcel and all interior portions thereof which, if not so maintained, may cause or tend to cause the exterior portion of such Improvement or Improvement parcel to deteriorate, decay or become damaged or otherwise fall into a state of disrepair. Every Owner, operator or agent of any property which has been designated a Landmark or is situated in a designated Landmark district shall further keep in good repair all portions of each Improvement and Improvement parcel which, if not so maintained, may cause or tend to cause such portions to deteriorate, decay, or become damaged or otherwise fall into a state of disrepair.

(b) The repair and maintenance required by this section includes, without limitation:

(1) Developing and implementing a maintenance and monitoring plan for protecting each Improvement and Improvement parcel.

(2) Structurally stabilizing each Improvement and Improvement parcel by taking all steps necessary to ensure:

A. The roof is watertight;

B. Gutters are properly pitched and cleared of debris;

C. Downspout joints are intact;

D. Drains are unobstructed;

E. Windows and door frames and wood siding are in good condition;

F. Masonry walls are properly tuck-pointed to keep out moisture;

G. The Improvement parcel is graded for proper water run-off;

H. Vegetation is cleared from around each Improvement; and

I. Trash, debris and hazardous materials such as inflammable liquids, poisons and paints are removed from the interior of each Improvement and from the Improvement parcel on a continuous basis.

(3) Exterminating or controlling pests, including termites and rodents.

(4) Protecting each Improvement from moisture penetration.

(5) Securing each vacant Improvement and Improvement parcel from vandalism and break-ins including, without limitation:

A. First floor windows and doors must be secured as provided in Section 3103.09 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Cleveland, Ohio, 1976;

B. Plywood must be painted black or if the structure is composed of brick, a color compatible with the color of the brick;

C. The method used to install the plywood may not result in the destruction of the opening covered and all sashes, doors and frames must be protected or stored for future use;

D. Battery-operated intrusion alarms must be installed on the first floor of each Improvement;

E. Battery-operated smoke alarms must be installed on all floors of each Improvement;

F. Adequate security lighting must be installed on each improvement and adequate security lighting or fencing or both must also be installed on each Improvement parcel where deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Buildings and Housing.

(6) Providing adequate ventilation to the interior of each vacant Improvement.

(7) Securing or modifying utilities and mechanical systems for each vacant Improvement.

(8) Taking such other steps deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Building and Housing.

(c) Every Owner of any property which has been designated a Landmark or is situated in a designated Landmark district shall, when the Commissioner of Building and Housing deems it necessary to preserve the public peace, property, health or safety, furnish and file with such Commissioner a bond in the penal sum of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) to be approved as to form by the Director of Law, guaranteeing full and faithful compliance by the Owner with the requirements of this section, binding the surety thereon to correct or abate any violation of this section whenever the Owner refuses, neglects or fails to correct or abate such violation within a reasonable time limit set by such Commissioner.

(d) Every Owner of any property which has been designated a Landmark or is situated in a designated Landmark district shall designate in writing the name, current address and telephone number of a natural person residing within Cuyahoga County who is authorized by the Owner to act for the Owner and receive any notices under this section. Such natural person must be of sound mind and at least eighteen years of age. Every Owner shall notify the Commissioner of Building and Housing in writing of any change in the name, address and/or telephone number of the natural person designated in this section.

(e) The provisions of this chapter shall be in addition to all other applicable provisions of the Building Code of the City of Cleveland. Where provisions conflict, the provision imposing the stricter requirement shall control.

(f) It shall be the duty of the Division of Building and Housing to enforce this section. The Cleveland Landmarks Commission, on its own initiative, may notify the Division of Building and Housing and request that the Commissioner of Building and Housing proceed to take action against any Owner, operator or agent who, in the opinion of such Commissioner, is in violation of his section.
(Ord. No. 1146-95. Passed 12-18-95, eff. 12-26-95)
161.99 Penalty
Back to Top

(a) Any person violating the provisions of this chapter by failing to perform any act required by this chapter or performing any act which is prohibited by this chapter shall be fined not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each offense. A separate offense shall be deemed committed each day during or on which an offense occurs or continues.

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) hereof, in the event any environmental change is made in any property which has been designated a landmark or which is situated in a landmark district, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, the City may institute appropriate proceedings to prevent such unlawful environmental change.

[Laramie]

We're not a Dallas, Denver or Houston. These are large cities--two to five times the metro populations of OKC with many more development projects in their portfolios.

Agree Spartan, we do need to learn from our own mistakes; however, everything is not doom & gloom. Lost opportunities in which we could have made better decisions.

Those demolitions are in the rear view mirror; we'll have to live with the results.

Save those iconic historic structures that have been apart of the fabric of our community. Move forward OKC...

[Questor]

So what I was so upset about the other day is a general complaint that I have with my city's planners, OKC city government, our state government, and all the usuals: they're so ****ing hard-headed.

Life will go on, but it's extremely aggravating to see us make the same dumb mistakes we did decades ago and do nothing about it. I would encourage everyone to contact their councilman and suggest changes to the process.

What makes me mad is that I have attended many, many council and planning meetings in my own city in the past and it's a real problem that our government officials just don't want to hear anything from us. The state makes that even more clear to everyone, including the cities.

The only way things will get better is if we collaborate, and I don't always see that kind of mindset from our local governments. In fact I don't often see it. Yeah they'll say they want it, but when you watch their reactions and what actually happens most of the time the message is "get lost." That has to change.

Let me modify my statement slightly. Contact your city representative and let them know how upset you are by this, and don't give NewsOK another single view / click through / link / whatever. Folks need to stop supporting that rag.

[Spartan]

We're not a Dallas, Denver or Houston. These are large cities--two to five times the metro populations of OKC with many more development projects in their portfolios.

Agree Spartan, we do need to learn from our own mistakes; however, everything is not doom & gloom. Lost opportunities in which we could have made better decisions.

Those demolitions are in the rear view mirror; we'll have to live with the results.

Save those iconic historic structures that have been apart of the fabric of our community. Move forward OKC...

The hollow words often just do more to annoy preservationists. If we are really going to learn from our mistakes, then we need to be looking not at the Skirvin (the success, yay us) or the Criterion or Biltmore (the two worst things we have ever done), but rather at the challenge that lies before us: The Walcourt, the old jail, bldg's in the C2S area, the Sunshine Cleaners (let's get that brewery some subsidies!), the Nuway bldg on Linwood, the old Progress Brewery west of Classen, etc etc... the problem is that I just know someone is going to respond to this saying, "arrgh that building? Nuway (or whichever) is ugly, tear that down for (wait for it) higher and better use!"

No more platitudes about preservation though. OKC has proven itself to be all hat and no cattle when it comes to historic preservation.

[bchris02]

People who say things like "We are not Dallas or Houston or Denver" to justify tearing down this city's history should take a trip to Richmond, Louisville, and even Jacksonville FL. Those cities are similar in size and demographics to OKC and have done an excellent job at preserving their historic buildings and neighborhoods. They have a charm that will, sadly, be difficult to achieve in OKC because of this city's past mistakes. There just isn't enough left to develop a "historic core" or anything of the sort. Not saying it can't be done, but OKC needs to invest in preserving what history it has left combined with quality urban infill that complements the "OKC style" that was lost. OKC is not as young as people paint it sometimes, it just seems that way because of all that was destroyed.

[Spartan]

Well idk about Jacksonville, FL.. though the convention center / train station there is cool.

Richmond is really fabulous. Louisville is what we could've been. I would also add Grand Rapids and Des Moines.

[TheTravellers]

Oh, I'm not happy with the city on this either. There's plenty of scorn to go around. Lackmeyer, the Oklahoman, everybody deserves some blame on this.

...

Asked before, haven't gotten an answer, so who do we write to/call to show that we are disgusted with this and that we are watching them and they need to do better? City councilperson (someone mentioned them, not sure if that's enough), DDRC, OKC Planning Division (if that's even such a thing), ...? Do we have any possibility of an impact on any future things like this happening or are we just impotent as citizens and have to just post our outrage here and let the rich and powerful good ol' boys have their way with us and the city?

[shawnw]

I would also add Grand Rapids and Des Moines.

I went to Des Moines this past Summer and was shocked how awesome it was. I want to go back for a closer look.

[kwhey]

OG&E can go suck on a car tailpipe.

[Laramie]

People who say things like "We are not Dallas or Houston or Denver" to justify tearing down this city's history should take a trip to Richmond, Louisville, and even Jacksonville FL. Those cities are similar in size and demographics to OKC and have done an excellent job at preserving their historic buildings and neighborhoods. They have a charm that will, sadly, be difficult to achieve in OKC because of this city's past mistakes. There just isn't enough left to develop a "historic core" or anything of the sort. Not saying it can't be done, but OKC needs to invest in preserving what history it has left combined with quality urban infill that complements the "OKC style" that was lost. OKC is not as young as people paint it sometimes, it just seems that way because of all that was destroyed.

Maybe we should leave buildings that are non functional standing that no one is willing to save or upgrade boarded up--a transits' paradise.

You have all the answers bcchris, let's hear your plan...

OKC (1889) is not as young? Louisville (1778), Richmond (1742) & Jacksonville (1791) are old enough to be Oklahoma City's great-great grandmother.

[bchris02]

Maybe we should leave buildings that are non functional standing that no one is willing to save or upgrade boarded up--a transits' paradise.

You have all the answers bcchris, let's hear your plan...

OKC (1889) is not as young? Louisville (1778), Richmond (1742) & Jacksonville (1791) are old enough to be Oklahoma City's great-great grandmother.

OKC is old enough to have a dense urban core just like those other cities. It did at one time.



If historic building stock is dilapidated, tearing it down for a parking lot or green space is not the answer. It should be left alone until either somebody comes in and invests in it to renovate and restore it, or somebody proposes something that is of higher and better use. Even then, some things should not be torn down, especially in OKC where there is so little history left.

The Skirvin once looked hopeless and was saved from demolition. Imagine if they were able to tear it down. The most impressive, charming hotel in OKC wouldn't exist. One time the entire Paseo strip was actually threatened. Imagine if they were actually able to demolish it and what would have been lost if they would have succeeded.

[OKCisOK4me]

Can we please just start an actual new thread onve there's some kind of activity on the actual land site? So tired of hoping to read something positive on here and finding nothing but emotions...

[Laramie]

Chris, do you have a plan? Don't hold your breath, bcchris...

Can we please just start an actual new thread onve there's some kind of activity on the actual land site? So tired of hoping to read something positive on here and finding nothing but emotions...

There's some thread life left on these Good Year Wranglers...

Agree, would help to focus on the positives the city now enjoy.

[betts]

Maybe we should leave buildings that are non functional standing that no one is willing to save or upgrade boarded up--a transits' paradise.

You have all the answers bcchris, let's hear your plan...

OKC (1889) is not as young? Louisville (1778), Richmond (1742) & Jacksonville (1791) are old enough to be Oklahoma City's great-great grandmother.

That's precisely what happened with the Marion and the Plow. Aren't we glad they weren't demo'd? It was painful to look at them boarded up and nonfunctional, but I am quite glad they are not surface parking lots. Sunshine Bakery is getting new life. All of Film Row was Skid Row a few years back. Boarded up is better than asphalt.

[Just the facts]

That's precisely what happened with the Marion and the Plow. Aren't we glad they weren't demo'd? It was painful to look at them boarded up and nonfunctional, but I am quite glad they are not surface parking lots. Sunshine Bakery is getting new life. All of Film Row was Skid Row a few years back. Boarded up is better than asphalt.

Imagine if the little Hale Building was still standing. It would make a great live/work bakery or restaurant today. Instead - surface parking lot paved with broken dreams.