My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04/16/1997 Minutes
Document-Host
>
City North Olmsted
>
Boards and Commissions
>
1997
>
1997 Architectural Review Board
>
04/16/1997 Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2019 12:33:40 PM
Creation date
1/29/2019 9:40:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
N Olmsted Boards & Commissions
Year
1997
Board Name
Architectural Review Board
Document Name
Minutes
Date
4/16/1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />seen many proposals for these poles before iu other plamuug cominission ineetiugs, but this is the last <br />place he would tluuk that they would install tlus kind of pole. Mr. Bradford stated that they are <br />desiguiug tlus pole so that another cam'er can locate on it. Mr. Yager disagreed, he did not tliiuk it <br />would happen. Iu other cities the can-iers all wanted theu- own poles. 1VIi. Bradford stated that 8 months <br />or a year ago that was the case, but now cam'ers are locating ou other poles because cities are requiring <br />it. Mr. Gallagher is concei-ned about safety, suice if the mat exceeds the fence there could be problems. <br />This issue is uot before the board. Mr. Zergott was conceiued about iustalling a cyclone feuce with <br />prongs ou the top where cluldreu are playiug. NIr. Bradford stated AT&T will adhere to whatever <br />recoimnendation the board inakes for the feuce. M.r. Liggett would like a masonry fence go around the <br />whole area, and on the peripheiy out further away some mouuding and landscaping up lugh, not close to <br />the wall, so cluldren can get over it, but inoiuiding up toward the parking lot, it would lude a lot of the <br />ugly features, and most cluldreu will not even look up. Also the seivice drive could be turned around to <br />the side so that a person would have to go arouud the landscapiug to get iuto it. Mr. Bradford noted <br />that the size of the parcel they are tryiiig to lease is 40 by 40 feet, if mouuding is included, a lot of it will <br />be outside the area being leased. He questioned who would maintain the landscaping. T'hey might lure a <br />landscaper to take care of it for 2 or 3 years, but he does uot waut to place the burden of maintaining it <br />on the city. T'hey might also try to lease more fi-oin the city. Mr. Couway stated that this board may <br />recominend, however the administration should make the final decision. Mr. Zergott is concerned that if <br />it is a solid wall, you could not be able to see inside it. He does uot like tlus in a park, it just becomes a <br />place to fool aroluid. 1VIr. Yager and Mr. Bradford discussed other locatious, but Mr. Conway stated <br />that tlus should uot be addressed by the board. He confirmed the contract is not sigued and negotiations <br />are still on going. Mr. Gallagher uoted that a inasoiuy fence is not conductive aud would be safer. Mr. <br />Liggett suggested a 10 or 12 feet higli fence with the moiuiding. He has seen tlus done before with <br />utility buildings and even gas statious. T. Liggett moved to accept the concept for the landscaping and <br />fenciug arouud the AT&T structures in Clague Park, with the recomunendation that the fence be a <br />inasonry fence, 10 foot in height, with landscape buffering arouud the east, south, and west side of <br />mounding, 3 or 4 foot tall, with landscaping on top of the mound uid on the uorth side landscaping <br />should be on the grouud, landscaping should mostly be piues, or soiuetlung that we sheild tlus building. <br />T1us landscapuig and inounding should be located far enough away for kids safety. The gate would have <br />to be board on board or sometlung very heavy, perhaps ametal gate with a board on board treatment. <br />Tlus board strongly objects to the existeuce of the pole in the park. The inotion was seconded by B. <br />Zergott. T. Liggett and B. Zergott, yes. N1r. Gallagher and NIr. Yager, no. N1r. Gallagher was totally <br />agaiust the pole in a park. N1r. Yager stated that he could not see tlus pole in.the siuall park and would <br />like the city engiueer to review tlus and fiud an area iu North Olmsted that would be conducive to a 100 <br />foot pole. Mr. Zergott agreed, but if it has to go ui the park because of eminent domain, it should be <br />haudled the way that was suggested. Mi•. Yager stated that if it has to go iu the park, then there is a <br />local person, Joe Scully in Treinout, who was capable of disguising the pole. He would like the <br />administratiou to look into this possibility. Mr. Liggett stated that if it is going to be disguised it should <br />be in an area suirounded with trees. - VI. ADJOURNMENT: <br />The meeting was adjouimed at/7:30 p.in. <br />e? <br />. <br />B. Ze-R-g"o"tt, (Mainma <br />A),^-l B. Oruig, Cleidof Commissions <br />7
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.