01/12/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

for the board is mid-February so there will be another meeting to address the subject. Mr. Lang said his recollection is they have determined that the board owes Mr. Halleen an answer within 2 or 3 days of the next meeting. Mr. O'Malley said he asked the Planning Director to try to invite Mr. Halleen back to the Planning Commission. There seems to be a connection between the issuance of a demolition permit and the issuance of an approved development as to what happens next. He indicated he brought that to the attention of the Building Commissioner. It seems they should coincide. They don't issue a demolition permit until they know what will happen next. He said people do not demolish a building and return the land to its natural state. People demolish buildings in conjunction with an approved development plan. He suggested that Mr. Halleen be put on another Planning Commission docket as soon as possible. Mr. Yager said he brought this up at the last Planning Commission meeting and it was determined that the Planning Director, Ms. Wenger, would contact Mr. Halleen and try to set up a meeting. He said as of today, Ms. Wenger has not heard back from Mr. Halleen but contact was made. He asked Ms. Wenger to try again and report back at the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for tomorrow. Mr. Lang asked NIr. Yager if he knows who Ms. Wenger contacted. Mr. Yager indicated he does not know. Mr. Lang said the contact should probably be Ron Kula since he is the on-site supervisor for Mr. Halleen. Mrs. Lord said they had issues in the past getting mailings to the right person. Mr. Lang said in December he left a message at the Chevy dealership for Mr. Halleen. It was responded to by Mr. Kula. Mr. Lang said he has been responsive. Mr. Nasher asked if this conversation is dealing with Rebecca's. Mr. Lang confirmed that. Mr. Nasher asked if the board is 100% in favor of the building being preserved. Mr. O'Malley said he needs to answer any legal question there might be before he leaves the meeting. He said he tried to bring out the issue he sees in the law as far as the procedural determination of the demolition permit being linked to the Planning Coinmission evaluation of the proposed amendment to the development plan. In fairness to the applicant, the Planning Commission tabled his application to amend his development plan out of respect for the Landmarks Commission's role. The other answer to the legal question, procedurally, is the ball is in the City's court. The board has made substantial efforts to cause the administration to work in evaluating the cost involved of moving the building and putting together a coalition in support of saving the building. He said they could add saving Rebecca's to the budget request. Mr. Nasher said his personal opinion is there are other priorities in the City, rather than this commission trying to save Rebecca's or relocating it. At this point in time, Halleen already has a hand shake agreement with C&N Automotive Repair. He has been buying up a lot of land over there. He said he would not be in favor of preserving that building. He does not see any historical value at all. Mr. O'Malley said if this matter is not on the agenda, he would discourage the board from going much further. He then left the meeting at 8:07 p.m. Mr. Barker said the Landmarks Commission has been given a charge to preserve historical significance in the City. He said he is surprised by Mr. Nasher's remarks, particularly at his first meeting. To say that there are more important things to do in the City than save an old building that doesn't mean anything, is the wrong thing to say. Mr. Nasher asked if there are historical events that surround the building. Mr. Barker asked if Mr. Nasher had read any of the commission's minutes. Mr. Nasher indicated he has read minutes. Mr. Barker said the Rebecca's building was the first retail establishment in the City, in the center of town. Mrs. Lord confirmed that fact and said it was the first building erected as a store in what is now North Olmsted. It was built in 1898 and it was the center of town and is the only one remaining. Mr. Barker said that whether they can save the building or not, they have to put up a fight and make the effort. It is up to the City to finally determine if they can save it. It is the board's responsibility to go to the administration and ask for money to help them save the building. Mr. Nasher said he thinks the money would be better spent in the present historic district on Butternut Ridge Road. He mentioned the idea of putting lights up and a sign that can be read from a distance. Mrs. Lord said she believes there are 3 or 4 signs now. There is no argument about additional things they can do to Butternut. That isn't going away this moment. They have exactly one month and two days to determine the fate of the Rebecca's building. It is the immediacy of this situation and the commission's charge to preserve and protect that, which has any historical significance. As a body they voted to not allow the demolition because of the historic significance. As a group, they have already 6