Laserfiche WebLink
' - •.. <br />Mr. Lang questioned if Mr. Halleen would consider the utilization of the building in his business. <br />Mr. Farrell indicated that at this time that is not a viable option. <br />J. Lang motion that the Landmark Commission recommend that the building be put to use <br />in its current location. B. Lord seconded the motion. Discussion: Discussions whether or not <br />the motion was viable or not took place. It was determined that the motion would be <br />appropriate. Roll call on the motion: all in favor, "yes" unanimously approved. <br />J. Lang motion in the alternative to using the building at its current site, Landmarks <br />Commission recommend to the City (both Mayor and Council) that the City accept <br />Halleen's offer to donate the building. The monies in the amounts of up to $100,000.00 be <br />allocated and that the City find a site for relocation of said building, and that the building <br />be relocated to that site. Discussion: Discussion regarding the price of moving the building <br />going up took place and it was deterinined that the increase was needed as there is not a set <br />location. Mr. Halleen was asked what timeframe he would allow the board. Mr. Farrell <br />indicated that his client was willing to work with the City but could not set any type of <br />timeframe. T. Dubowski seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved. <br />Mr. Lang questioned if the City does not accept and relocate the building and if they refuse to <br />use it in its current location, are they willing to make it available to third parties. Mr. Farrell <br />voiced that the owners had no objections to third parties being involved. Discussion regarding <br />telephone calls Mr. Halleen had received regarding the free building took place. One caller <br />wanted to move it outside North Olmsted but he thought the commission wanted the building <br />kept in North Olmsted and had not heard from him since. Mr. Barker questioned if Mr. Halleen <br />was asking a purchasing price to third parties. Mr. Halleen indicated that he was asking <br />$10,000.00 for the building. <br />J. Lang motion that Landmarks Commission recommends that any interested third party <br />be given the opportunity to move the building to retain its historic integrity. B. Lord <br />seconded the motion. Discussion: It was discussed allowing the building to be moved outside <br />North Olmsted if it would save the building. Roll call on the motion, all in favor, "yes" <br />unanimously approved. <br />Mr. Lang wanted confirmation that Mr. Halleen would not do anything to the building until there <br />is a final determination and perinission given to develop all the parcels that are under Mr. <br />Halleen control, i.e. he will not do anything to the building until the whole plan is approved. Mr. <br />Farrell reviewed that not only was this parcel purchased but an additional parcel along Porter <br />Road was purchased and to this date they have not consolidated all the parcels in question. Their <br />intent is to consolidate all the parcels and submit a final plan for approval to Planning <br />Commission. Mr. Lang indicated that Landmarks would submit a report to the Building <br />Department and it is up to the Building Department as to when they issue permits. Mr. Farrell <br />voiced that they are not prepared to go before Planning Commission and need to request they be <br />allowed to come back at a later date. Mr. Farrell indicated that he would e-mail the commission <br />to keep them up to date of their plans. <br />J. Lang motioned that if none of the motions that were made come to pass than he moves <br />that Landmarks Commission grant a certificate of appropriateness for a demolition permit <br />for the Halleen Kia application for Parcel 232-10-059 & 060. G. Nasher seconded the <br />motion. Discussion: discussion regarding whether or not the motion was appropriate/needed <br />3 <br />-4