08/11/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

said for purposes of clarification for the record, it is his understanding there is an application that is pending before the Planning Commission that revolves around the use of this land. It was tabled by the Planning Commission. The applicant may or may not chose to present any evidence to the Landmarks Commission in support of the application to demolish the structures. The board is not limited or confined by the evidence presented by the applicant. The board may proceed independent of any evidence the applicant may present. Mr. Lang asked Mr. Kula if he wished to offer any alternative use for the current building short of, or alternative to, demolition. Mr. Kula said he cannot see a use for the buildings at this particular time. It does not have a structural value. Nfr. Lang asked if there would be any point in sitting down to talk to see if there could be alternatives. Mr. Kula said he does not see how anything can come of it. Mrs. VanAuken asked if they can give some kind of a vision of what the corner will look like after the demolition. Mr. Kula said it could be similar to CVS. He said at this time they plan to brick the east wall to match the west wall then adding a display on the outer ring, and customer parking against the building. They will have green space extended in front of the lot and have it wrap around. It will match the CVS property across the street. Mr. Lang asked for confirmation that they will have a display lot on the west side of the showroom and it will be mirrored on the east side and then as it approaches Porter, there will be a grass area. Mr. Kula said the grass area will be similar to what is in front of the cars now. Mr. Corell asked what the relationship is between C&C Realty and the car dealership. Mr. Kula said the same owner of C&C Realty, owns the dealership. Mrs. VanAuken asked where the driveway will be. W. Kula said it will be approximately where it is right now, off Porter. Mrs. VanAuken asked if they plan to put another building on the lot. Mr. Kula said at this time, no. They are a growing business but he can't answer for future plans because business trends dictate certain obstacles and opportunities. Mr. Barker asked Mr. Kula if he has any knowledge of the historic significance of the two buildings. Mr. Kula said he was told the first commercial store was at the corner. Mr. Barker pointed out the medical building was the first bank in the city. Mr. Corell said it was a bank in 1929. Mr. Barker asked if the applicant has any remorse or misgivings about doing something like this, tearing down something with historical significance to the city. Mr. Kula said he has no remorse about tearing down those facilities. Mr. Halleen asked if Mr. Barker wants the buildings. He said he will give him the buildings. Mr. Lang said the board is at the tail end of a time frame for giving the applicant an answer. Mr. O'Malley mentioned Section 165.07 (a)(4), which deals with the application to demolish, and Section 165.08 that refers to the review process. He said in 165.09 there is reference to the docketing of the demolition permit application. This matter was actually referred by the Building Commissioner and sent over and docketed in a timely fashion. He said the commission is within the 30 days after the hearing to make a recommendation. It is not necessary to reach an ultimate conclusion tonight. They might have to consider certain evidence in order to reach a finding. He said this is subject to 165.10, the public hearing requirements, and that has been taken care of. He then mentioned 165.10 (c), which refers to the criteria for making determinations. He said members of the commission could testify to their knowledge of the historical significance. The applicant might attempt to address the determination to be made and persuade the commission it would have no detrimental effect on the Landmarks Commission if the buildings were to be demolished. He said 165.11 (a)(3), which refers to demolitions, and (c), which refers specifically to demolition guidelines, lists the criteria. He said 165.11 (c) is where there is a reference to a six-month time period. If the commission finds there will be no detrimental effect on the continued historic architectural character of the area, then the board could approve the application. If they find a detrimental effect, the board would have up to six months, during which time, a list of alternatives could be explored with the applicant, including the possibility that the building could be rescued. Mr. Kula said if the board chooses to use the six-month review, he would like to know when it starts. Mr. O'Malley said he is not at liberty to answer 1V1r. Kula's question. It is a hypothetical question. He is recommending that the board plot along in an orderly fashion in accordance with the guideline of the code in order to reach its conclusion. He said there has only been limited discussion so far. Mr. Lang asked Mr. O'Malley if when talking about testimony and evidence, is he speaking about people being present, being interviewed. Mr. O'Malley said he is referring to any and all of those sources, including the board's own observations and recollections, and the board's understanding of the district and its integrity and preservation. Mr. O'Malley mentioned the newly released North Olmsted 3