My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11/10/2003 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
2003
>
2003 Landmarks Commission
>
11/10/2003 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:49:18 PM
Creation date
1/28/2019 7:40:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
2003
Board Name
Landmarks Commission
Document Name
Minutes
Date
11/10/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
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
by someone who was fearful the members could be individually sued and the commission did not do <br />anything. It was re-started later with Betty Lord as the chairman and from then on it has been going so <br />it's been a while; since about 1978. Mr. Lang said his concern is the presentations made to <br />schoolchildren because there does not seem to be anyone in the wings to take Mrs. VanAuken's place. <br />The presentations take a lot of time and preparation. Mrs. VanAuken said the slides she has used are a <br />great help. <br />V. COMIVIITTEE REPORTS: <br />Mr. Lang said they really need to establish committees but they are getting short on manpower. He <br />believes there was a committee, Mr. Barker, Mr. Dubowski and himself, set up to do something. Mr. <br />Barker said he thinks it has to do with Rebecca's. He said he has not heard back from Mr. Halleen on the <br />request for a copy of the demolition survey. He asked if he should re-request it. Mr. O'Malley said he <br />would recommend that he follow-up on the correspondence and ask for a meeting. He would also <br />recommend that he correspond with city council. He said it will probably come down to funding. <br />Ordinarily, City Council will ask direct questions such as "what is this going to cost us?" In order to <br />determine the cost, some of the leg work that is described in the memo will need to be done, whether it's <br />evaluating the house by a professional that is hired to estimate these things. City Council holds the purse <br />strings and if you gather people together, you will have varying opinions on where the building should <br />go, whether it's a good idea, and whether money should be spent elsewhere. There is no single vision and <br />there is no cost estimate. Mr. Barker asked Mr. O'Malley which committee this issue would end up with. <br />Mr. O'Malley suggested that the communication be directed to City Council and it may move on to the <br />finance committee. Mr. Barker asked Mr. Lang if he received a response from the Mayor. Mr. Lang <br />replied he did not and the items on the agenda requires an expenditure of some kind and he gathers from <br />the Mayor's discussion at the last meeting, that he wasn't exactly sure that there was the kind of expertise <br />available within the city to give those kinds of estimates or that kind of information. It would have to be <br />hired out and there would have to be a budget allocation. He said there was at least one "freebie" from <br />Kazak movers who gave a ballpark figure on the cost of moving the structure. Mrs. Davis said the other <br />part of the move is where the building will go. Mr. Lang said if the building is not suitable to move, then <br />it will be a moot point. He said Mr. Kazak did not enter the building to see if it was moveable. He did <br />indicate the back end of the building could come off because it is newer. Mr. Lang said if the breezeway <br />is taken off, that might structurally weaken the west wall of the building to the point where it could not be <br />moved. He said he would guess they need the Mayor's approval to speak to the City Engineer. Mr. <br />O'Malley said they can direct inquiries to the Building Cominissioner to a large extent, as the board has a <br />working relationship with him. Although, he has already indicated the Rebecca's building is beyond his <br />expertise to analyze. He said the commission's requests to the Mayor would likely then go to the <br />appropriate directors. Mr. Lang asked if the same would apply to the newly appointed Planning Director. <br />Mr. O'Malley said it would. He said he would hesitate to say the board is prohibited from contacting any <br />directors. The board has already contacted the Mayor. He said time is of the essence which is why he <br />would recommend they direct communication to Council because maybe they can say they are not <br />interested in spending the money on the building no matter where it would go. He said it is likely <br />Council may say they are open-minded but they would want to know if anyone has estimated the cost and <br />if there is a firm plan for where this is going, and the answer would be no. He said the Mayor was very <br />open-minded to this concept. Mr. Barker asked if the chairman should dictate a letter to the clerk to send <br />to Council or if the board should first follow up on the letter to the Mayor. Mr. O'Malley said the board <br />should do both. They should ask the Mayor for an audience and have a written communication sent to <br />Council. Mr. Barker asked if he should contact Mr. Halleen again for the report he requested. Mr. <br />O'Malley said perhaps he would contact Mr. Halleen's attorney. He said that Mr. Halleen had previously <br />mentioned he had a buyer for the building. Mr. O'Malley said his concern is this potential buyer vanishes <br />while the city is busy trying to prepare for this. Where there may have been a possibility to move the <br />building, they might end up with the wrecking ball if the city does not come through. Mr. Barker asked if <br />3
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.