Renovating the Dog House Tavern is a possibility, and so is demolition for the owners of Langley’s historic building.

Owner Charlie Kleiner said he will speak with city officials next week to discuss possibilities for the Dog House. The closed door face-to-face will come on the heels of the first reading by the city council of Langley’s new standards for the demolition of a building on or eligible for the National Historic Register or Washington register. The rules were submitted by Jeff Arango, the city’s director of Community Planning, after months of work on Oct. 6, which is ahead of the November deadline attached to an emergency demolition moratorium adopted by the council this past May.

“We’re willing, as before, to renovate the building,” Kleiner said in a phone interview with The Record Thursday. He and wife Janice Kleiner live in Issaquah, and purchased the landmark building years ago with plans to turn it into a mixed-use structure.

“If the building isn’t savable, we’re going to have to come up with some other plan … I can’t take demolition off the table. Pretty soon, it’s going to demolition [demolish] itself.”

Originally, they looked at renovation and restoration, but felt like the city wasn’t cooperating. It sparked an inquiry by the couple about demolition, and city officials responded with the moratorium.

Relations deteriorated between the owners and City Hall after the Kleiners withdrew their request for a street vacation — a bid asking the city to forfeit a publicly owned right-of-way. They wanted land next to the Dog House to make their property line straight and remove the burden of having an easement under the exterior stairs and deck on the structure’s western exterior. Tangling the issue further is that the hilly area is a public access to the shoreline which is more strictly regulated as to how it can be developed and altered.

Langley, as a municipality, is not allowed to give away public land without fair compensation, which could either be monetary or in a land swap, such as one proposed by Langley. City officials agreed to give up the easement under the stairs for equal property on the waterside of the building next to Seawall Park. The Kleiners refused, believing it was an unequal trade.

“We still have a disagreement over that,” said McCarthy, referring to the Kleiners’ original request for city property.

In the months since the Kleiners asked the city about the demolition process in April, McCarthy has played peacemaker. He reached out to the Kleiners with a greeting card that had a drawing of the Dog House, letting them know the city was greatly interested in seeing restoration or preservation of its well-photographed facade.

“The attitude is much more positive on both sides,” McCarthy said.

On the Kleiners’ side, frustration still exists. Charlie Kleiner said he remains in the dark about what the city wants them to do with the building or how they could incorporate its features into new construction. Places like Banff, Alberta, have a clear look, he said, which Langley lacked.

“They don’t have a theme,” Kleiner said.

Part of the demolition moratorium was designed to address just that lack of specificity. New rules keep Langley’s 30-foot plot look, even if several properties were bought and rebuilt into one structure, the First Street and waterfront facades would be staggered to look like several separate spaces.

Some of the major provisions in Langley’s new demolition code also address how demolition permits would be approved. The ordinance prohibits various methods of “demolition by neglect,” requiring owners to engage in regular upkeep and maintenance to prevent the building from falling into disrepair, thus qualifying for demolition.

McCarthy acknowledged some issues with the Dog House Tavern building exist.

“If you look at it, you can see the roof goes up and down,” said McCarthy, though he added that he was unwilling to agree with Kleiner’s assessment that it’s “ready to fall over.”

Kleiner said he and his wife still want to move forward with some kind of development of that building and property. If nothing can be done, however, he said that they are considering something else in Coupeville.

“I hope that our future is Langley,” he said.

“I’d just like to find out sooner than later if we’re going to realize that goal in Langley or move over to Coupeville.”