Laserfiche WebLink
then what is the commission being asked to vote on. The commission is unclear as to what their <br />options are when addressing the schools request. Mr. Schumann said he doesn't think there was <br />any doubt that the voters of North.Olmsted knew the building was being demolished. Mr. Morse <br />said he is concerned that once the school is done there will be residents asking Landmarks <br />members what they did to ensure what could be salvaged was salvaged. Although it was said the <br />front entrance would be saved there was no background on how it was determined the entrance <br />and two interior doors were the only historically significant items worth saving. <br />Mr. Schurman said the budget is fixed and he's not saying the scope of salvage is fixed but the <br />budget is fixed, so any money spent in excess of the budget for the demolition comes out of the <br />funds for the new school. Salvaging things from this building would be very costly and he's not <br />saying it isn't appropriate or a worthwhile cost but it would come out of the funds for the new <br />facility. The school board was very clear that the funds were to be maximized for the <br />construction of the new building while honoring the architectural value through the new facilities <br />design to ensure it fits into the historical district. Mr. Smith said to review the process which was <br />used to determine what architectural elements would be salvaged, Vera Brewer formed a <br />committee the committee walked around the exterior and interior of the building taking pictures <br />of what they felt was relevant then gave the photos to our committee. Their firm then looked at <br />things that were reasonable to salvage and omitted things that couldn't be saved. Mr. Morse said <br />that was the information they were looking for and asked if the commission could see all photos <br />taken by the committee and Mr. Smith said yes he would have Ms. Brewer send a copy of the <br />photos which were taken. <br />Mr. Dubowski said the majority of those who voted understood there would be a new building; <br />however there have been residents who have voiced a concern of what would be preserved from <br />the building. Mr. Limpert said although three generations of his family have gone to the <br />middle/high school he understands the school needs to be replaced; however what can be <br />salvaged should be salvaged to preserve the school's history. <br />Mr. Morse moved, seconded by Mr. Dubowski to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness to <br />15-4205: North Olmsted Board of Education of 27351 Butternut Ridge Road for the <br />demolition of the North Olmsted Middle School with the condition that architectural <br />elements from the existing building are to be considered for reuse within the new building, <br />and if reuse is not possible, those items are to be offered to the Olmsted Historical Society. <br />Roll call: Neville, Schumann, Limpert, Dubowski, Morse - yes; Dubelko - no, motion <br />passed 5-1. <br />15-4245: North Olmsted Board of Education; 27425 Butternut Ridge Road <br />Proposal consists of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the North Olmsted <br />Schools administrative building. <br />Mr. Neville asked why the COA was being requested now if the building isn't scheduled to be <br />removed until next fall. Mr. Dubowski asked where the administration building would be located <br />and Mr. McDade said he was not at liberty to discuss that with the commission. Mr. Schumann <br />asked if a COA is indefinite or expires. Ms. Wenger said it's not a permit so she wasn't sure <br />there is an expiration or time limit. <br />4