01/12/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

out Halleen's master plan for the site. He does not believe anyone has seen that. Without a clear development plan, the idea of demolition or no demolition needs to be identified in respect to that larger plan. He said Mr. O'Malley has talked to the Planning Director and asked that Halleen come before the Planning Commission with their appropriate master plan to see the logistics and format to see if this will make sense. Mr. Lang said Mr. Halleen is very adept at either not being available to respond to a correspondence, and if they are stuck with a time frame for notification of certain things by law, if a deadline is missed then he gets another month. And if he gets another month then Planning Commission cannot respond to his plan which means that Landmarks would have to give a final determination within a month before anyone knows what he is up to on the rest of it. These are the kinds of things they are confronted with without any kind of authority. They could probably sit down with Mr. Halleen but he gave them an answer once. They have not tried to get an answer again. They cannot negotiate with his attorney. They can't do anything but talk and they have had the talk and categorically the answer was given. He said they have not made a second attempt to see if Halleen has modified his stance. They have been operating on the basis of his answer to the commission that they pursue the examination of movement of the building. Mr. Nasher said if the board will take the step forward and write the letter, and everyone signs it, and the Mayor signs it, it can be sent to Halleen. Ask him to consider saving the building. Mr. Yager said this commission has stated its strong opinion only to Planning Commission at this point and now to Council through the Landmarks representative. Mr. Barker said they also made a presentation to the Finance Committee. Mrs. Lord said they did have an invitational meeting although it was not well represented. Mr. Yager asked if they have gone to the Planning Commission to say they want to keep the building. He said they want to get that backing to salvage the building. He thinks the letter to Halleen should go hand in hand with the meeting with them. The meeting should take place this week or next at the latest. He has seen a lot of companies change their opinion on things last minute when there is community pressure. Mr. Nasher said it would not hurt to address the media with this issue. Channel 19 loves issues like this and might be willing to come out. Mrs. Lord said she will write something out for the board to review. Invitation to Join Societv of Architectural Historians National Preservation Institute - 2004 Seminar Schedule National Alliance of Preservation Commissions - Invite to 2004 Forum Forum News from the National Trust Forum The Alliance Review Echoes newsletter VI. COMIVIITTEE REPORTS: Mr. Lang said there are no standing committees with the exception of his request of Mr. Barker to be a budget committee of one last month. Mr. Barker's report is under "New Business". VII. OLD BUSINESS: Rules of Procedure - The Rules of Procedure were corrected by Mr. O'Malley's office. The reason for the rules is that in order to qualify as a Certified Local Government, there is a requirement that they have such rules that cover such things as where they meet, when they meet, etc. W. Barker referred to Page 3, Article III, and mentioned the annual meeting. It is penciled in on his copy. Mr. Lang said it is written in his copy. Mr. Barker then mentioned Page 4, at the top of the page, item D. He asked if it is included in the final version of the rules. Mr. Lang said in his copy there are other corrections that need to be made but they are editorial. The meeting order has been changed according to the board's suggestion. W. Lang said he must have been the only member to get the revised copy. For purposes of a very short discussion, paragraph 2.04, annual meeting, he asked if there is any point in changing the ineeting from January to February. His rationale is if terms expire at the end of a month and new members are supposed to be sworn in at the first meeting of the year, at least three people and possibly 8