02/26/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

him, he would really be upset. From what he understands the first reading has already taken place. His history is they have met with RTA four times in the last year to try to reach some kind of agreement and have not been able to do that. He is not sure why the city became an agent of RTA in this but he is sure there are legal ramifications. Mr. Koeth asked if RTA had talked with him about acquiring the land. Mr. Sheffield said they had talked about it. RTA wanted to buy the land and made him get an appraisal, which they did. And then they suddenly found out there was another process going on where it was going in a different direction. Mr. Sheffield said in the discussions they had with RTA in those four meetings they made some progress in talking about mounding and trees to protect the entrance to the property; that would run across the north end of where his property which is where they have woods. That is the part they want to take. The church had architectural drawings done a long time ago of a shelter and a children's play area in that location. Their concern is that since that is now going to become a street, he assumes that would negate RTA from any responsibility of mounding or fencing, or anything to protect the church property. He would like the Planning Commission to protect the church property, where a number of buses and cars will be Doing by all the time, by having fencing and mounding. He wanted to know if RTA has done any test borings on the property. Mr. Shaffer indicated they had done testing. Mr. Sheffield asked if someone has to ask permission to come on your property if they intend to do this testing. Ms. Feke said they took the testing on RTA property and not on church property. Mr. Sheffield said it looks like someone did testing on his property because they saw holes which would indicate testing was done. He asked if it becomes a street, would RTA have responsibility to snow plow, and maintain the city's street. Mr. Koeth indicated it is not a street, it is a driveway because it's an entrance into the Park-N-Ride. Mr. Sheffield said that soineone in the city informed him that is the reason they were taking that property. That is how they can do a quick grab. It is a requirement that it would be a street. They would not be able to do that for a driveway. Mr. Koeth pointed out that RTA has indicated they would maintain the road and the plowing. Mr. Sheffield said he understands that but if it's a city street, would they still do that. Mr. O'Malley said it is something that is a subject to the agreement because the resolution of necessity viewed this as a public street and one of the issues in this agreement is exactly that; maintenance of the street by RTA as opposed to by the city. Mr. Sheffield is strongly asking that the Planning Commission consider protecting their property on the north end by extending a fence or mounding, or trees out to Grreat Northern Blvd. The board conferred. Mr. 5palding said he is concerned about the traffic impress and egress out of the driveway if it's a city street. He asked Mr. O'Malley if that is being handled in the negotiations. He wondered if the traffic control equipment that will be used will be reimbursed to the city by RTA. Mr. O'Malley said he does not know if that is part of the agreement that is being reviewed. It was drafted by Mr. Dubelko and is more related to the probate proceedings for the acquisition of the property and maintenance issues. He takes it that the ODOT procedures would be reviewing the intersection, signalization, and things of that nature. The engineer might have a better understanding of how ODOT reviews an intersection improvement like this in terms of where signalization is located. Mr. Spalding said that based on the concerns of the church, there doesn't appear to be any landscaping according to the plan coming out from Great Northern Blvd. and going east to the first turn. He asked who is handling the landscaping for RTA. i Mr. Emling said that Mr. Sheffield makes a good point and RTA will address it further and add the - appropriate landscaping to secure his northern property line also. They will go back to their landscape architect and develop that further. The board members conferred further. Mr. Hauff, from Sunset Oval, came back to the podium and said that there seems to be a lot of different fib res on the fence. He said as long as the fence is sturdy, make sure it's 9-10', on top of a 3-4' mound, and along the residents side. He saw the fence in Rocky River and it is 9 or 10' and is higher than the buses. The board discussed recommendations further. Mr. Conway pointed out there were questions from the audience at the last meeting concerning bus trips down to Jacobs Field and other sporting events. He - suggested having a representative from NOMBL address those issues. Mr. Tom Terbrack, General Manager of NOMBL, came forward and said that in reading the previous minutes, there were questions about the size of the coaches. They have 42 buses, 2 of them are 11', 7" high. The other 40 11