My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
12/03/2001 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2001
>
2001 Landmarks Commission
>
12/03/2001 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:48:32 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 4:57:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2001
Board Name
Landmarks Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
12/3/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
J <br />he leaves because it is plaqued. There are no plaques on Columbia and Columbia is one of the <br />City's oldest roads. She thanked him for his time and coming to their board ahead of time. She <br />asked him to keep the board posted as to the progress of the home. <br />Mr. Corell questioned what the board had concluded about the Barton Rd. Church. Mrs. Lord <br />replied that it is a landmark and there was a plaque. The reason you can't see the holes is <br />because of the aluminum siding. Nobody knows where the plaque went. Mr. Corell questioned <br />if the land was restricted in the initial deed. Mrs. O'Rourke replied that they do not know that <br />because she gave the initial copy of the deed to the site student, Mathew, and he went into the <br />service. Mr. Corell indicated that he had spoken with Leonard Frick from the school system and <br />he found boxes of old records, which included non-recorded deeds from way back when. He <br />volunteered to talk with Mr. Frick to see if the board couldn't get their hands on them. He will <br />stop in at the Stone house also to see if the board could go there to view it. Mrs. O'Rourke <br />indicated that she called the realty company today and found out that Grace Fellowship still owns <br />the Church. The minister is in charge of the sale of it. It is under contract right now by another <br />Church. The new people want to flatten the old building and build new. That is the plan if the <br />deal goes through. It is still $990,000 for the property. The buildings were gone through and <br />the violations were so numerous that it was not even feasible financially for whoever is interested <br />in buying it to repair. The code violations were like five pages long. She questioned if the board <br />could tour the Church. The Realtor told her that she would have to speak to Rick Farris, the <br />broker, but there shouldn't be any problem setting this up. Mrs. VanAuken suggested getting <br />some of the treasures out of the Church before it is demolished and distribute them to the proper <br />people. The organ, the old pews, a lot of the new facilities and the stained glass windows <br />shouldn't be just knocked down. Nlrs. O'Rourke indicated that she didn't ask the name of the <br />Church that was contracting to buy it, but she is sure if Mr. Farris calls her then she can ask if the <br />board could go through it before them. Mr. Corell corrunented that if the Church was plaqued <br />then it can't be demolished until it comes through this board and City Council. Mr. Barker <br />questioned why the City hasn't gotten involved if this building is in such disarray and has so many <br />problems. Mrs. Davis commented that she had talked with a neighbor of the Church and they <br />questioned who to call to complain about the condition of it. Mr. Corell indicated that the <br />building department is responsible for making sure they keep up the yard maintenance. Mr. <br />Barker suggested that they could also call their councilman. Mrs. Davis suggested that the board <br />needs to contact Mathew's mother to see if they can get the deed back. Mrs. O'Rourke <br />volunteered to contact his mother to try to retrieve this. <br />IV. COMIVIUNICATIONS: <br />Mr. Barker brought up that the Heaton's were held up one month because of filing procedures. <br />He wrote to the Clerk of Commissions and she replied that under section 165.10 B of the <br />codified ordinances, the applicant must receive the notification sheet from her office 15 days <br />prior to the meeting date so that the applicant can post it within 7 days of the meeting date. He <br />understood that there was a miscommunication between her and the Building Department. She <br />replied that since the commissions office did not receive the file on the Heaton's to allow 15 day <br />notice, they could not be put on the agenda. She did not know when Building received the <br />application, but since this happened she has made up a form for the Building Department to give <br />to any applicant that needs to go before the Landmarks Commission, which explains the process. <br />She would recommend that an applicant file 20 days before the meeting date to allow adequate <br />time. The other thing he asked about was starting the meeting at 7:00pm and leaning towards a <br />2
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.